THE  MORAL  DAMA 
OF  WAR 


BY 

y 

WALTER  WALSH 


Gilfillan  Memorial  Church,  Dundee 


PUBLISHED  FOR  THE  INTERNATIONAL  UNION 


GINN  & COMPANY,  BOSTON 

1906 


Copyright,  1906 

By  WALTER  WALSH 


ALL  RIGHTS  RESERVED 


6lI.I 


TO 


THE  THIRTEENTH 

INTERNATIONAL  PEACE  CONGRESS,  BOSTON,  1904 
THE  AMERICAN  DELEGATES  AND  THE 
AMERICAN  PEOPLE 

WHOSE  LARGE-MINDED  HOSPITALITY 
TO  THE  DELEGATES  FROM  OTHER  LANDS 
AND  TO  THE  GREAT  PRINCIPLE  THEY  REPRESENTED 
WILL  ABIDE 

AN  INSPIRING  AND  IMPERISHABLE  MEMORY 
IS  INSCRIBED 
THIS 

POLEMIC  FOR  PEACE 


England  and  America  are  properly  not  two  nations , but  one ; inseparable 
by  any  human  power  or  diplomacy  ,*  being  already  united  by  Heaven* s 
Act  of  Parliament , and  nature , and  practical  intercourse ; indivisible 
brother  elements  of  the  same  great  Saxondom. 

Carlyle  to  Dickens,  1845 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


https://archive.org/details/moraldamageofwarOOwals 


PREFACE 


The  argument  that  follows  is  not  spun  from  the 
writer’s  fancy,  but  deduced  from  facts  of  which  he  has 
had  intimate  experience.  The  instances  and  illustra- 
tions were  not  coined  in  the  mint  of  his  imagination,  but 
in  nearly  every  case  are  either  direct  quotation  or  accu- 
rate summary  of  precise  sayings  and  doings  referable, 
on  challenge,  to  their  sources. 

So  much  was  affirmed  when  the  following  pages  were 
first  given  to  the  British  public.  But  so  hideous  was 
the  revelation  they  contained  of  the  damage  wrought 
by  war  upon  the  moral  nature  of  all  classes  of  society, 
that  a few  persons  professed  to  receive  it  with  incre- 
dulity, and  dismissed  the  conclusions  with  evasive 
exclamations  about  rhetoric  and  exaggeration.  Such 
persons  were  those  who  either  had  not  passed  through 
the  same  fire  as  the  writer,  or  had  not,  like  him, 
observed  and  noted,  gathered  and  pondered,  through 
sorrowful  years,  or  whose  previous  habit  of  mind  left 
them  unprepared  for  the  message  of  peace.  The  sin- 
cerity of  these  evasions  may  be  judged  from  the  fact 
that  in  no  single  instance  were  they  accompanied  by 
a demand  for  the  production  of  the  proofs  so  freely 
offered;  whilst,  on  the  contrary,  others  well  qualified  to 
judge  corroborated  the  extremest  statements,  offering  to 
supplement  them  by  facts  within  their  own  possession, 


VL 


PREFACE 


soldiers  even  testifying  from  personal  knowledge  that 
they  were  not  in  the  least  exaggerated.  Thus,  having 
every  right  to  believe  that  the  comment,  severe  as  it 
is,  does  not  exceed  the  warrant  of  the  text,  the  writer 
has  met  skepticism  in  advance  by  providing  in  this 
edition  the  means  of  verification.  Every  important 
statement  is  referred  to  the  speaker  or  writer  with 
whom  it  originated,  and  confirmatory  extracts  are  given 
in  the  appended  notes,  so  that  the  reader  can  judge 
whether  the  indictment  of  the  war  spirit  here  set  forth 
be  not  fully  warranted  by  the  facts  of  the  case.  Unfor- 
tunately this  could  not  be  done  without  increasing  the 
size  of  the  volume  ; but  the  writer  is  assured  by  friends 
qualified  to  judge  that  the  material  thus  supplied  to  the 
peace  advocate,  with  numerous  references  to  the  litera- 
ture of  the  subject,  is  well  worth  the  space  required  to 
set  it  forth,  and  he  has  cheerfully  performed  the  labor 
that  seemed  necessary  to  make  this  edition  an  armory 
of  facts  and  arguments  on  behalf  of  the  most  pressing 
of  modern  reforms.  The  full  index  at  the  end  will 
facilitate  this  use. 

Under  the  influence  of  that  self-love  which  induces 
every  nation  to  imagine  itself  the  finest  possible  speci- 
men of  the  human  race,  discontent  may  be  felt  that  the 
proofs  of  war’s  damage  are  culled  for  the  most  part 
from  the  English-speaking  peoples  ; and  the  familiar 
accusation  may  be  again  heard  that  we  are  of  those  who 
“speak  well  of  every  country  but  their  own  ! ” Alas  ! 
would  that  it  were  possible  to  believe  that  these  apples 
of  Sodom  could  be  gathered  only  from  the  Anglo-Saxon 
stock ; but  so  far  is  this  from  being  the  case  that  the 


PREFACE 


vil 


author  would  undertake  in  a very  short  time,  confining 
himself  only  to  the  wars  of  the  last  hundred  years,  to 
fill  another  volume  as  large  as  the  present  with  simi- 
larly odious  evidences  of  war’s  demoralizing  influence 
upon  the  minds  of  every  civilized  nation  in  the  world. 
No;  the  demoralization  does  not  inhere  in  any  one 
people  more  than  another;  it  inheres  in  war  itself,  by 
whomsoever  waged,  in  the  war  spirit  by  whomsoever 
provoked.  And  it  would  be  a thing  equally  silly  and 
sinful  to  illustrate  the  moral  injury  of  war  by  reference 
only  to  the  brother  nations;  for  that  would  be  to  feed 
still  further  the  national  vanity  which  is  so  largely 
provocative  of  war,  and  which  it  is  one  object  of  the 
following  pages  to  expose.  “Ah,  yes ! ” the  reader  would 
exclaim ; “ those  dreadful  foreigners ! But  how  different 
with  our  just  and  humane  wars,  our  civilized  soldiery, 
our  fair-dealing  traders,  our  righteous  statesmen,  our 
eminently  Christian  preachers  !”  Nothing  would  be 
easier  than  for  an  Anglo-Saxon  writer  to  make  capital 
out  of  the  military  crimes  of  the  Latin,  Teutonic,  or 
Slav  races,  as  an  indolent  and  timid  preacher  can  earn 
cheap  fame  by  denouncing  every  sin  except  that  which 
sits  in  the  pew  before  him  ; but  that  would  be  to  put  yet 
further  away  the  better  understanding  between  nations, 
and  the  truer  estimate  of  their  mutual  capacities  for 
goodness,  out  of  which  alone  the  prevention  of  inter- 
national collisions  can  arise.  Unimportant  social  habit 
and  accident  of  environment  apart,  there  is  no  essen- 
tial difference  between  the  moral  nature  of  one  people 
and  that  of  another.  All  possess  the  same  capacities 
for  goodness  and  happiness ; all  incline  to  justice  and 


Vlll 


PREFACE 


peace ; all  are  responsive  to  the  vast  cosmic  movement 
towards  brotherhood;  and  all  may  equally  be  turned  to 
cruelty  and  injustice  by  the  deteriorating  influence  of 
the  war  spirit.  It  seemed,  therefore,  quite  necessary 
to  show  that  all  war  is  injurious  to  the  moral  nature  of 
whatever  people  wages  it,  to  verify  the  assertion  about 
war  in  general  by  verifications  drawn  from  the  most 
recent  wars,  and  (without  ignoring  the  others)  to  base 
the  conclusion  upon  the  history  of  that  Anglo-Saxondom 
in  whose  language  the  book  is  written  and  to  whom  it 
is  sent  forth.  If  any  reader  continues  to  cherish  the 
idea  that  the  English-speaking  races  represent  the  high- 
est evolution  of  the  human  type,  let  him,  when  he  has 
read  to  the  end  of  the  indictment,  reflect  how  indescrib- 
ably horrible  must  be  the  sum  total  of  war’s  iniquities 
when  those  of  “ inferior  ” races  are  added  to  those  of 
the  “ superior  ” ; for  “ if  they  do  these  things  in  a green 
tree,  what  shall  be  done  in  the  dry  ” ? 

From  the  premise  that  war  does  actually,  in  a given 
case,  inflict  grievous  hurt  upon  the  moral  sense  of  all 
classes  and  professions  in  a community,  it  is  an  easy 
step  to  the  inference  that  it  must,  in  every  case,  inevita- 
bly do  so,  and  not  a great  stride  to  the  conclusion  that 
therefore  all  war  is  discordant  with  the  religious  princi- 
ples of  Jesus. 

The  sentence  just  quoted  from  the  first  edition,  with 
the  line  of  argument  developed  in  the  opening  chapter, 
gave  rise,  it  happened,  to  some  misunderstanding  among 
three  reviewers  favorable  to  the  peace  movement.  The 
first  warned  the  writer  that  the  peace  movement  included 


PREFACE 


IX 


a large  number  of  workers  both  in  Europe  and  America 
who  did  not  acknowledge  discipleship  to  the  Christian 
or  any  organized  form  of  religion,  yet  found  a humanist, 
rationalist,  or  utilitarian  basis  sufficient  for  their  anti- 
war propaganda,  and  that  it  was  a mistake  to  found  an 
argument  for  peace  solely  on  an  authoritarian  or  tra- 
ditional form  of  religion.1  The  second  pointed  out  that 
no  church  had  recognized  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount 
as  the  basis  of  Christianity,  that  the  book  virtually 
demanded  a new  basis,  that  the  idea  of  a man’s  good- 
ness being  determined  by  love  and  zeal  in  the  promotion 
of  human  brotherhood  was  not  a Christian  doctrine,  no 
creed  holding  it  essential  to  salvation2;  and  this  critical 
view  seemed  to  be  confirmed  by  the  declaration  of  an 
avowed  disciple  of  Jesus  that  the  principle  of  the  abso- 
lute sinfulness  of  war,  on  all  sides,  was  not  a Christian 
principle.3  The  third  lamented  that  the  first  chapter 
seemed  to  discount  all  the  tentative  practical  steps 
which  alone  the  nations  could  be  induced  to  adopt  for 
several  generations  to  come.4 

Now  it  is  perfectly  true  that  the  present  writer,  chal- 
lenged to  reflection,  is  only  the  more  determined  in  the 
direction  of  the  views  expressed  in  his  opening  chap- 
ter : that  no  form  of  purely  political  or  intellectual  or 
utilitarian  motive  will  be  found  effective  in  the  removal 
of  the  curse  of  war  from  the  earth  ; that  the  pressure  of 
the  political  situation  of  the  day  will  always  overpower 

1 J.  M.  R.,  The  Reformer , February,  1903. 

2 Newcastle  Daily  Leader , November  24,  1902. 

3 Private  letter  from  a Roman  Catholic  priest. 

i Dr.  C.  F.  Aked,  Pembroke  Pulpit,  No.  24. 


X 


PREFACE 


ultimate  ethical  considerations  ; intellect  will  attempt 
in  vain  to  stem  the  torrents  of  animal  passion  bound 
up  in  the  same  personalities  with  it,  and  utility  will 
always  be  able  to  argue  that  the  greatest  happiness  of 
the  greatest  number  will  be  promoted  by  the  success 
of  the  nation’s  arms  ; and  that  therefore  the  religious 
motive  alone  has  in  it  depth,  power,  and  prophetic  width 
of  outlook  to  carry  the  peace  principle  through  to  a 
historical  consummation.  Whilst  differing  entirely  from 
the  distinguished  writer1  who  affirms  an  “ ultrarational  ” 
sanction  for  such  religious  conduct  as  consists  in  the 
subordination  of  national  egoism  to  international  altru- 
ism, or  the  interests  of  the  self-assertive  nation  to  the 
larger  interests  of  the  race  ; whilst  holding,  on  the  con- 
trary, that  such  conduct  can  fully  justify  itself  to  the 
rational  faculty,  the  present  writer  agrees  that  “ the 
evolution  which  is  slowly  proceeding  in  human  society 
is  not  primarily  intellectual  but  religious  in  character; 
. . . the  great  deep-seated  evolutionary  forces  at  work 
in  society  are  not  operating  against  religious  influences 
and  in  favor  of  the  uncontrolled  sway  of  the  intellect. 
On  the  contrary,  it  seems  to  be  clear  that  these  influ- 
ences have  been  always  and  everywhere  triumphant  in 
the  past,  and  that  it  is  a first  principle  of  our  social 
development  that  they  must  continue  to  be  in  the 
ascendant  to  the  end,  whatever  the  future  may  have 
in  store  for  us.”  Whatever  “tentative  practical”  steps 
may  be  taken  by  the  political  powers  will  be  deter- 
mined solely  by  motives  of  national  self-interest  mate- 
rially considered,  and  will  always  break  down  just  at  the 

1 Benjamin  Kidd,  Social  Evolution,  pp.  103,  243,  247. 


PREFACE 


xi 


crucial  point  where  the  demand  is  for  self-suppression 
and  the  coming  into  play  of  the  sacrificial  motive. 
Something  from  lower  modes  of  thought  and  forms  of 
activity  will  be  certainly  achieved  by  the  way,  but  the 
propulsive  energy  will  always  be  religious,  and  the  final 
leap  to  the  shining  goal  is  forever  impossible  to  any 
motive  that  has  not  learned  the  meaning  of  self-sacrifice, 
which  is  the  essence  of  religion. 

In  this  religious  conception,  further,  consists  the 
true  bond  of  union  amongst  the  different  thinkers  and 
workers  who  come  together  at  such  international  peace 
gatherings  as  that  to  which  this  volume  is  dedicated. 
Any  discussion  of  the  nature  of  Christianity,  or  the 
relation  of  the  peace  ethic  to  dogma  and  tradition, 
would  be  quite  out  of  place  here,  and  so  long  as  the 
matter  is  debated  amongst  Christians  themselves  it 
would  be  absurd  to  base  the  argument  for  peace  on 
any  mere  authoritarian  system,  or  stake  the  cause  upon 
uncertain  book  sayings  of  disputed  interpretation,  or 
risk  a universal  movement  upon  any  single  view.  Mul- 
titudes of  sincere  Christians  will  be  content  to  find 
the  final  condemnation  of  all  war  in  the  sayings  attrib- 
uted to  Jesus  as  these  may  be  read  in  the  white  light 
of  the  developed  conscience  of  to-day;  whilst  others 
will  prefer  to  find  their  warrant  in  the  evolution  of  the 
idea  of  social  sacrifice  or  altruism  characteristic  of  our 
time,  in  the  faith  that  the  Christ  spirit  in  humanity  is 
coming  to  higher  ethical  developments,  leaving  war 
behind  as  an  anachronism  and  a husk  outgrown.  No 
great  gulf  divides  these  Christian  schools  from  each 
other,  or  both  from  sincere  ethicists  and  reformers  of 


XU 


PREFACE 


yet  other  schools.  It  is  undeniable  that  the  actual 
test  and  criterion  of  genuine  Christianity  applied  by 
Christians  themselves,  clearly  expounded  in  its  earliest 
stages,  more  and  more  emerging  into  view  as  the 
wrappings  of  the  Dark  Ages  fall  apart,  is  precisely  its 
sacrificial  or  altruistic  ideal  applied  to  the  relation  not 
merely  between  the  individual  and  the  nation,  but 
between  the  nation  and  the  race.  It  is  equally  unde- 
niable that  the  weighty  and  progressive  element  in 
those  ethical  and  reforming  schools  which  stand  outside 
nominal  Christianity  is  their  altruistic  or  sacrificial  feel- 
ing working  in  the  same  direction.  All  alike  bring  the 
loftiest  principles  evolved  in  the  modern  consciousness 
to  the  solution  of  problems  and  the  removal  of  abuses, 
each  merely  expressing  them  in  terms  of  his  own  mental 
state  as  utilitarian,  positivist,  rationalist,  humanist,  or 
Christian.  All  alike  transfuse  their  philosophies  with 
that  moral  enthusiasm  and  self-renouncing  motive  which 
are  of  the  essence  of  religion,  and  without  which  Chris- 
tianity itself  is  a mass  of  inert  tradition  as  powerless 
to  avert  war  as  any  fetichism  that  ever  did  duty  for 
religion  in  an  African  jungle.  Here,  then,  is  the  com- 
mon ground  on  which  the  present  writer  stands  with 
such  different  but  not  contradictory  thinkers  as  com- 
posed the  Thirteenth  International  Peace  Congress,  and 
from  which  he  can  frankly  ask  them  to  accept  the  dedi- 
cation of  this  contribution  to  the  great  cause.  All 
dogmas,  traditions,  expediencies,  utilities,  rationalities, 
humanities,  are  but  the  husks  out  of  which  emerge  the 
perfect  fruit  of  altruistic  sentiment,  racial  solidarity, 
the  brotherhood  of  man,  — in  a word,  religion.  And 


PREFACE 


xm 


the  great  typical  poet  of  America  will,  as  is  most  fit, 
speak  the  word.1 

I say  that  the  real  and  permanent  grandeur  of  these  States  must 
be  their  religion, 

Otherwise  there  is  no  real  and  permanent  grandeur ; 

(Nor  character  nor  life  worthy  the  name  without  religion, 

Nor  land  nor  man  or  woman  without  religion). 

What  are  you  doing,  young  man  ? 

Are  you  so  earnest,  so  given  up  to  literature,  science,  art,  amours  ? 
These  ostensible  realities,  politics,  points? 

Your  ambition  or  business,  whatever  it  may  be  ? 

It  is  well  — against  such  I say  not  a word.  I am  their  poet  also, 
But  behold  ! such  swiftly  subside,  burnt  up  for  religion’s  sake, 
For  not  all  matter  is  fuel  to  heat,  impalpable  flame, 

THE  ESSENTIAL  LIFE  OF  THE  EARTH, 

Any  more  than  such  are  to  religion. 

1 Walt  Whitman,  Leaves  of  Grass , complete  authorized  edition,  p.  22. 
See  also  Specimen  Days  and  Collect , p.  278. 


CONTENTS 


Page 


I.  War  considered  as  an  Immorality  ....  i 

II.  The  Moral  Damage  of  War  to  the  Nation  . 39 

III.  The  Moral  Damage  of  War  to  the  Child  . . 79 

IV.  The  Moral  Damage  of  War  to  the  Soldier  . 107 


V.  The  Moral  Damage  of  War  to  the  Politician  167 

VI.  The  Moral  Damage  of  War  to  the  Journalist  199 


VII.  The  Moral  Damage  of  War  to  the  Preacher  . 233 

VIII.  The  Moral  Damage  of  War  to  the  Missionary  271 

IX.  The  Moral  Damage  of  War  to  the  Trader  . 305 

X.  The  Moral  Damage  of  War  to  the  Citizen.  . 345 

XI.  The  Moral  Damage  of  War  to  the  Patriot  . 379 

XII.  The  Moral  Damage  of  War  to  the  Reformer.  41  i 

INDEX 451 


THE  MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


I 

WAR  CONSIDERED  AS  AN 
IMMORALITY 


Ye  have  heard  that  it  hath  been  said,  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour, 
and  hate  thine  enemy. 

But  I say  unto  you,  Love  your  enemies,  bless  them  that  curse  you, 
do  good  to  them  that  hate  you,  and  pray  for  them  which  despitefully 
use  you,  and  persecute  you  ; 

That  ye  may  be  the  children  of  your  Father  which  is  in  heaven : for 
He  maketh  his  sun  to  rise  on  the  evil  and  on  the  good,  and  sendeth 
rain  on  the  just  and  on  the  unjust. 

For  if  ye  love  them  which  love  you,  what  reward  have  ye?  do  not 
even  the  publicans  the  same  ? 

And  if  ye  salute  your  brethren  only,  what  do  ye  more  than  others? 
do  not  even  the  publicans  so? 

Be  ye  therefore  perfect,  even  as  your  Father  which  is  in  heaven  is 
perfect.  — Jesus. 


THE  MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


I 

WAR  CONSIDERED  AS  AN  IMMORALITY 

Considering  that  recent  international  conflicts  have 
been  utilized  by  so  many  eminent  persons  to  effect 
improvements  in  the  art  of  war  and  to  make  plans 
whereby  succeeding  wars  may  be  rendered  more  com- 
pletely destructive,  it  cannot  be  out  of  place  to  point 
an  entirely  contrary  moral,  and  to  consider  how  such 
events  may  be  most  effectually  discouraged,  or,  indeed, 
altogether  prevented.  If  a word  spoken  in  due  season 
be  as  good  as  the  old  proverbist  thought  it  was,  the 
words  that  follow  cannot  be  wholly  impertinent.  Opin- 
ions as  to  the  origin  and  remote  causes  of  any  particular 
war  may  differ ; but  there  can  be  only  one  feeling  in 
view  of  the  long  catalogue  of  disappointments,  mistakes, 
miseries,  and  surrounding  horrors  of  every  war;  and 
there  should  be  only  one  disposition  to  ponder  the 
moral  questions  connected  with  it.  After  strife,  reflec-y 
tion  ; after  violence,  reason  ; after  sin,  repentance  ; and 
surely  no  mind  can  be  so  prejudiced,  nor  any  heart 
so  hard,  as  to  reject  the  lessons  and  refuse  the  pen- 
ances dictated  by  mournful  experience.  These  questions 

3 


4 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


cannot  be  allowed  to  pass  with  the  passing  occasion,  but 
broaden  out  from  the  particular  to  the  universal,  em- 
brace all  occasions  of  war  or  of  peace,  and  demand  noth- 
ing less  than  an  examination  of  those  moral  principles 
which  may  be  supposed  to  justify  or  forbid  the  appeal 
to  arms.  Such  times  are  opportune  for  asking  whether 
Christendom  has  discharged  its  obligation  to  its  Lord 
by  denominating  him,  through  its  pulpits  on  the  occa- 
sion of  their  annual  Christmas  sermons,  the  Prince  of 
Peace,  or  whether  it  be  at  last  possible  to  do  the  things 
that  he  says,  gathering  new  interpretations  out  of  the 
Hill  Sermon,  and  giving  them  new  applications. 

Christian  morality  is  the  touchstone  to  which  war 
must  now  be  brought ; for  if  it  cannot  justify  itself 
to  the  modern  Christ,  it  surely  cannot  any  longer 
command  the  approbation  of  modern  Christendom.  Ref- 
erence to  ancient  texts  and  traditions  may  help  certain 
minds,  and  may  have  brought  us  part  of  the  way ; but 
it  is  surely  now  possible  to  take  our  stand  upon  the 
historical  development  of  the  Christian  consciousness, 
and  claim  that  it  demands  the  substitution  of  reason 
for  violence,  and  the  triumph  of  moral  over  physical 
forces.  Appeal  to  the  religious  sense  of  the  modern 
world  is  the  highest  — and  if  our  object  be  the  entire 
abandonment  of  this  moral  offense  it  is  the  only  — 
appeal  that  is  left  us.  Every  other  argument  has  had 
trial,  and  has  had  its  partial  truth  acknowledged ; but 
none  has  been  found  dynamic  enough  to  restrain  the 
wrath  or  destroy  the  cupidity  of  the  nations,  which  have 
gone  on  fighting  just  the  same.  Benjamin  Franklin 
offered  it  as  his  opinion  that  “ there  never  was  a good 


WAR  CONSIDERED  AS  AN  IMMORALITY  5 


war  or  a bad  peace”  1 ; yet  Milton’s  reproach  still  wrings 
our  withers  : 

O shame  to  men  ! devil  with  devil  damn’d 

Firm  concord  holds,  men  only  disagree.2 

The  appeal  to  pity  has  not  been  strong  enough  to 
prevent  war.  Its  sufferings,  though  great  and  terrible, 
have  not  been  sufficient  to  restrain  those  whose  inter- 
ests or  passions  drew  them  to  arms.  The  ferocious 
bravery  of  besiegers  and  the  stubborn  valor  of  defenders 
is  no  such  new  thing  in  the  history  of  the  world  that 
we  need  to  pale  with  fear  or  purple  in  praise  of  it. 
Man  is  a brave  brute  ; all  his  story  shows  that.  Wounds 
and  death  cannot  turn  him.  Before  our  day  he  has 
fought  ten  thousand  wars,  greedy  of  wounds,  careless 
of  torture,  merry  in  the  face  of  death.  The  cheeriest, 
heartfulest  animal  in  the  universe  is  man.  He  will  make 
a million  children  orphans,  including  his  own,  with  an 
oath  upon  the  fathers  who  begat  them  ; will  break  the 
hearts  of  ten  thousand  women,  even  his  own  mother’s, 
with  a song  upon  his  lip  ; will  spit  an  old  mother’s  only 
son,  or  be  spitted,  on  a bayonet  with  as  little  remorse 
as  he  would  spear  a frog ; will  gouge  out  the  blue  eyes 
of  a girl’s  sweetheart  with  as  little  compunction  as  he 
would  pare  his  nails  ; nothing  to  him  the  vacant  chairs, 
the  broken  marriage  altars,  the  widowed  marriage  beds. 
A cheery  desperado  is  this  man.  And  such  obduracy 
may  have  in  it  an  element  of  nobleness  ; for  there  are 
things  men  fear  more  than  pain  and  death,  as  there  are 
things  they  love  more  than  health  and  life.  It  may  be 
a perverted  sense  of  honor,  or  only  lust  of  possessing, 
or  sheer  delight  in  brute  combat ; but  there  is  always 


6 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


something  to  turn  aside  any  address  to  the  feelings. 
Terrible  as  are  the  pictures  of  war’s  horrors  drawn  by 
pen  and  pencil,  harrowing  as  are  the  reports  of  corre- 
spondents and  letters  of  soldiers  on  the  field,  there  is 
never  any  lack  of  recruits  ; some  drawn  by  love  of 
country,  others  by  love  of  fighting,  others  by  inflamed 
thirst  for  glory,  others  by  nothing  more  exalted  than  a 
shilling  a day.  Be  the  injuries  inflicted  by  scientific 
weapons  never  so  hideous,  and  let  them  be  set  forth 
with  all  the  realism  of  camera  and  pencil, 3 — the 
pierced  hands,  shattered  skulls,  severed  blood  vessels, 
smashed  bones,  — the  war  demon  has  but  to  pass  his  red 
sponge  across  the  page,  and  lo  ! it  is  as  if  it  had  never 
been.  Hard  as  is  this  way  of  transgressors,  vastly  as 
the  wounds,  maimings,  deaths  of  war,  exceed  those  of 
martyrdom,  — for  one  man  who  is  prepared  to  embrace 
death  at  the  stake,  a million  are  ready  to  meet  it  on  the 
field  of  battle.  Though  imagination  is  wholly  unable 
to  body  forth  the  awful  whole  of  which  artists  and 
writers  set  forth  some  details,  or  make  to  the  mind  a 
complete  presentment  of  the  countless  forms  in  which 
death  meets  the  soldier  on  the  field  or  in  hospital ; and 
though  men  might  be  expected  to  pause  before  the 
prospect  of  bodily  mutilation,  torment,  thirst,  in  con- 
junction with  mental  rage,  anguish,  and  despair, — 
the  physical  hell  of  shot  and  steel  and  trampling  hoof 
mingling  with  the  moral  hell  of  hate  and  revenge,  brute 
foam  and  devil  fury  ; the  early  rain  of  blood  and  fell 
harvest  fields  of  dead  meeting  the  latter  rain  of  tears 
and  mournful  aftermath  of  widows  and  orphans  ; the 
long  agonies  of  the  broken  limbs  and  the  longer 


WAR  CONSIDERED  AS  AN  IMMORALITY  7 

agonies  of  the  broken  hearts, — yet  it  is  vain  to  expect 
to  put  an  end  to  war  by  considerations  such  as  these ; 
for  experience  has  shown  that  they  are  powerless  to 
restrain  the  passions  which  lead  to  it,  that  they  have 
no  terrors  for  the  bloodhounds  which  begin  to  bay  in 
man’s  heart  when  fired  by  lust  of  battle.  Soldiers  are 
not  unseldom  heard  to  declare,  and  the  less  determined 
friends  of  peace  to  echo,4  that  none  is  so  averse  to  war 
as  he  who  has  made  it,  none  is  so  much  the  friend  of 
peace  as  he  who  knows  the  horrors  of  battle  ; but  ex- 
perience only  partially  bears  this  out.  The  soldier  fre- 
quently longs  for  war  in  “ weak  piping  times  of  peace,” 
often  rejoices  in  it  because  its  fascinations  overcome 
its  horrors,  and  he  knows  he  has  always  the  gambler’s 
chance  of  escape  in  the  bloodiest  fray.  Nothing  can 
change  this  view  of  it  save  the  sense  of  its  sinfulness ; 
and  to  bear  this  sense  of  guilt  in  upon  the  minds  of 
the  authors  and  instruments  of  war  is  the  bounden  duty 
of  the  Christian  religion. 

It  would  be  altogether  a mistake  to  attribute  this 
indifference  to  the  plea  of  pity  to  any  extraordinary 
courage  on  the  part  of  those  whom  other  influences 
draw  to  arms  ; for  it  has  required  something  more  than 
either  fear  or  philanthropy  to  turn  many  from  violence 
to  the  more  excellent  way  of  love.  It  frequently  requires  x 
as  much  courage  to  dissent  from  war  as  to  wage  it ; and 
their  conviction  of  its  unlawfulness,  and  consequent 
refusal  to  participate  in  it,  has  involved  both  ancient 
and  modern  Christians  in  physical  sufferings  and  even 
death.  Those  persons  who  put  armed  conflict  finally 
into  the  category  of  the  unlawful  and  proscribed  things^ 


8 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


are  moved  by  something  deeper  than  a humane  shrink- 
ing from  the  sight  of  blood  ; for  they  are  precisely  of 
that  martyr  breed  which,  whilst  it  fears  sin,  does  not 
fear  death  ; and  they  are  moved  to  abandon  it  more 
by  a sense  of  its  moral  evil  than  its  physical  suffer- 
ings. To  their  minds  death  is  not  necessarily  an  evil  — 
might  even,  under  certain  conditions,  be  the  greatest 
good  and  the  highest  joy ; so  that  they  are  not  deter- 
mined merely  by  the  spectacle  of  their  fellow-creatures 
suffering,  by  the  myriad,  death  in  its  most  appalling 
forms.  It  is  the  fact  that  death  meets  those  myriads 
whilst  indulging  the  most  appalling  passions  — their 
hands  filled  with  weapons  of  carnage,  their  hearts  with 
fratricidal  hate.  It  is  their  sense  of  the  moral  death 
involved ; searing  of  conscience,  deadening  of  heart, 
blunting  of  moral  faculty  ; fruits  of  death  brought  forth 
in  the  soul  of  the  survivor,  which  are  more  horrifying 
to  the  enlightened  consciousness  than  the  dying  groans 
of  the  stricken  can  be  to  the  mere  corporeal  nerve.  The 
thing  to  fear  is  not  pain,  but  trespass  ; not  suffering, 
but  wrong ; not  death,  but  demoralization ; not  hell, 
but  sin.  ('Therefore  it  is  not  the  suffering  of  war, 
immense  and  indescribable  as  it  is,  for  suffering  is  the 
heritage  of  man ; neither  is  it  death  by  war,  cruel  and 
uncountable  as  that  is,  for  death  is  the  common  lot ; 
but  it  is  the  sin  and  crime  of  war  that  constitute  its 
chief  offense,  and  that  render  it  the  one  peculiarly  and 
entirely  damnable  occupation  of  moral  beings.  The  last 
evil  of  war  is  not  its  ruin  of  cities,  wasting  of  homes, 
burning  of  cornfields  ; not  its  plague,  famine,  or  fire  ; 
for  storm  and  earthquake,  raging  sea  and  devouring 


WAR  CONSIDERED  AS  AN  IMMORALITY  9 

flame,  lingering  decline  and  swiftly  fatal  machine,  crush- 
ing train  and  suffocating  mine  ravage  equally  with  the 
red  field,  whilst  they  are  innocent  of  the  flagitiousness 
of  war,  — the  peculiar  sin  of  which  is  that  it  corrupts 
while  it  consumes,  that  it  demoralizes  whilst  it  destroys. 
It  is  not  because  war  kills  that  it  is  the  devil,  but 
because  it  depraves  ; and  it  is  because  it  depraves  that 
it  is  condemned  by  the  religious  consciousness.  The 
damage  it  inflicts  upon  the  persons  and  property  of 
men  is  trifling  beside  the  damage  it  inflicts  upon  morals  ; 
and  it  is  this  that  is  exciting  in  thoughtful  minds  a fresh 
interest  in  the  whole  military  conception.  The  ominous 
thing  is  not  the  body  prostrate  on  the  battlefield,  but 
the  brute  rampant  in  the  mother  land ; the  general  lower- 
ing of  ideal,  the  blatant  materialism  and  defiant  selfish- 
ness, the  open  and  shameless  divorce  between  ethics 
and  religion,  the  naked  and  unashamed  adultery  between 
ecclesiasticism  and  the  powers  of  this  world.  Many 
feel  that  they  must  stand  and  consider.  The  time  has 
come  to  think. 

If  the  appeal  to  pity  has  proved  too  weak  to  stay 
the  tempers  that  lead  to  war,  so  also  has  the  appeal  to 
reason.  The  rational  faculty,  indeed,  is  the  last  to  be 
consulted  either  in  the  inception  or  prosecution  of  a 
war.  When  the  execution  of  a single  criminal  is  in- 
volved, ethics  and  jurisprudence  unite  to  secure  impar- 
tial trial ; but  when  a nation  is  concerned,  a bastard 
“patriotism”  (the  sum  of  passion,  pride,  and  prejudice) 
insists  upon  inflaming  popular  fury  upon  the  basis  of  a 
brief  drawn  up  by  one  of  the  offended  parties  (the 


10 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


government  of  the  day),  who  constitutes  himself  judge, 
jury,  and  executioner  in  one,  and  then  dispatches  his 
armed  minions  to  promulgate  the  sentence  of  death 
by  brute  force  and  every  accompaniment  of  fear  and 
frenzy.  Attempts  to  put  force  upon  a basis  of  reason 
are  not  wanting,  but  no  reasons  have  yet  been  alleged 
that  can  restrain  a people  when  the  war  fury  has  taken 
possession  of  it.  On  the  contrary,  whilst  in  times  of 
amity  its  philosophers  and  ecclesiastics  build  up  fine 
theories  of  lawful  and  unlawful  wars,  its  people  in  time 
of  provocation  rage  and  its  rulers  take  counsel  together 
to  find  excuses  for  the  struggle  upon  which  they  are 
bent.  Many  reasons  can  then  be  found  for,  but  few 
against,  it.  A reason  is  never  wanting.  The  root  motive 
may  be  land  lust  or  blood  lust ; it  may  be  the  pirate 
or  the  sheer  savage  who  hastily  huddles  some  rags  of 
argument  about  his  nakedness  ; but  there  are  never 
wanting  finer  plausibilities  to  give  forth  to  the  world 
in  order  to  satisfy  the  etiquette  of  civilization,  appease 
the  unquiet  conscience,  and  enlist  the  ecclesiastics. 
Nay,  after  the  philosopher  has  rounded  off  his  exercita- 
tion  about  lawful  war,  and  formulated  a theory  that 
appears  to  meet  all  the  requirements  of  thought,  he  will 
discover  that  he  has  put  no  period  to  the  practice  of 
arms ; for  every  one  who  is  excited  by  passion  for  com- 
bat, or  moved  by  covetous  desire,  will,  with  juggling 
more  or  less  conscious,  discover  that  the  theory  ex- 
actly fits  his  case.  In  every  time  of  national  difference 
the  jealous  patriot  will  conceive  that  injury  is  being 
meditated  to  his  interests,  his  honor,  or  his  prestige. 
He  will  be  able  to  instance  a score  of  suspicious 


WAR  CONSIDERED  AS  AN  IMMORALITY  n 


circumstances  and  imagine  a hundred  more ; to  fortify 
his  fears  by  quoting  historic  precedent,  and  to  proclaim 
his  injured  innocence  before  a sympathizing  world.  He 
will  exhort  a long-suffering  nation  to  put  its  foot  down 
before  a worse  thing  come  upon  it,  and  neither  the 
students  nor  the  preachers  will  be  able  to  remember 
the  distinction  between  lawful  and  unlawful  war ; nor, 
if  they  remember  it,  will  they  hesitate  to  class  the 
particular  war  of  the  day  in  the  category  of  the  lawful. 

Such  excuses  as  self-defense,  justice,  necessity, 
honor,  interest,  will  never  be  wanting  — not  in  a single 
case.  In  the  eyes  of  all  disinterested  persons  the 
attack  may  be  cruel,  wanton,  cowardly,  but  it  will 
assuredly  be  represented  as  righteous  and  glorious  by 
the  rulers  and  their  journalistic  minions,  by  the  fashion- 
able circles  that  revolve  like  satellites  round  the  seat 
of  government,  by  the  officials  with  their  vast  social 
ramifications,  and  by  the  army  with  its  family  relation- 
ships throughout  the  length  and  breadth  of  the  land. 
The  accumulation  of  interests  and  self-regarding  motives 
tending  to  find  justification  for  a desirable  war  is  over- 
whelming, and  bears  down  the  slender  barriers  erected 
by  reason  as  easily  as  an  avalanche  crushes  a harebell 
in  its  path.  Despising  alike  the  opinion  of  contempo- 
rary civilization  and  the  possible  verdict  of  posterity,  the 
infuriated  nation  inevitably  arrives  at  the  conclusion 
that  its  particular  war  is  just,  patriotic,  and  glorious  — 
as  England  did  when  it  attempted  to  crush  Scotland, 
as  Austria  when  it  strove  against  the  liberties  of  Switzer- 
land and  Italy,  as  Russia  when  it  suppressed  Poland. 
The  French  nation,  in  a memorable  deliverance,  declared 


12 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


that  it  “refuses  to  undertake  any  war  with  the  object 
of  conquest,  and  will  never  employ  its  forces  against 
the  liberty  of  any  people  ” ; 5 but  all  the  world  knows 
to  what  a sanguinary  denial  subsequent  events  drove  it. 
They  were  not  sinners  above  all  the  Galileans.  So  long 
as  war  in  general  has  its  morality  admitted,  any  par- 
ticular assault  becomes  a matter  of  casuistry,  and  will 
never  lack  justification.  So  long  as  a distinction  is 
drawn  between  moral  and  immoral  wars,  every  occasion 
will  without  difficulty  be  discovered  to  be  moral  by  the 
nation  concerned,  and  the  rulers,  with  affectation  more 
or  less  conscious,  will  speak  of  it  as  a necessity,  pain- 
ful no  doubt,  but  a necessity  still.  “ In  our  opinion 
the  Crimean  war  was  a perfectly  gratuitous  piece  of 
folly,  waged  with  no  real  aim  and  capable  of  produc- 
ing no  good  results  for  the  future.  It  was,  in  fact, 
a pure  waste  of  blood  and  treasure.  The  present  war, 
on  the  other  hand  . . ,”6  The  opinion  of  Gulliver’s 
houyhnhnm  master  is  fully  justified:  “He  seemed 
therefore  confident  that,  instead  of  reason,  we  were 
only  possessed  of  some  quality  fitted  to  increase  our 
natural  vices,  as  the  reflection  from  a troubled  stream 
returns  the  image  of  an  ill-shapen  body,  not  only  larger 
but  more  distorted.” 

Even  those  persons  who  regard  the  ecclesiastical 
world  as  a kind  of  moral  reserve  upon  which  they  can 
fall  back  from  the  secular  temper  of  the  politicians  will 
here  be  disappointed,  for  ecclesiasticism  will  never  be 
wanting  with  its  sanction  for  the  political  excuse,  and 
with  fresh  excuses  drawn  from  its  own  sphere.  A clear 
distinction  must  always  be  made  between  ecclesiasticism 


WAR  CONSIDERED  AS  AN  IMMORALITY  13 


and  religion,  or  between  religion  organized  as  a church 
and  the  religious  consciousness  in  humanity.  An  ex- 
perienced American  observer  testifies:  “If  you  address 
a miscellaneous  audience  at  the  Cooper  Institute  in 
New  York,  for  instance,  and  tell  them,  as  I have,  that 
war  is  a relic  of  barbarism  which  has  no  business  to 
show  itself  at  the  end  of  the  nineteenth  century,  they 
will  cheer  you  to  the  echo,  and  scarcely  a man  will  be 
found  to  make  a protest.  I have  also  spoken  to  audi- 
ences of  educated  Christians,  and  I have  found  them 
cold.  Only  once  were  my  hearers  unanimous  against 
me  without  an  exception,  and  that  was  when  I was 
invited  to  address  a meeting  of  Protestant  ministers.”  7 
It  will  always  be  possible  for  a bishop  to  get  up  and 
say  that  war  is  a necessity  for  a wronged  nation,  and  to 
declare  his  to  be  that  nation.  There  is  always  a way. 
There  is  always  a reason.  Never  was  quarrel  so  fla- 
grantly unjust  but  dignitaries  of  the  church  discovered 
that  it  was  permissible  to  drop  the  sermon  and  draw 
the  sword  ; that  it  was  a bounden  duty  to  descend  from 
the  Mount  and  take  the  field.8  The  devil  will  clothe 
himself,  for  certain,  in  the  garb  of  an  angel  of  light. 
There  will  never  be  wanting  a divine  to  say  that  “ the 
national  conscience  is  clean,  — it  is  a righteous  war; 
from  the  bottom  of  our  hearts  we  can  invoke  the  bless- 
ing of  Almighty  God.”  9 The  pulpiteer,  in  gown  and 
bands,  will  stand  gravely  up  to  assert  with  Mozley10 
that  the  religion  which  recognizes  nationality  recognizes 
also  war ; that  nothing  but  the  sword  can  decide  dis- 
putes between  those  nations  whose  destinies  collide ; 
and  that  to  so  much  as  arbitrate  upon  a dispute  wherein 


14 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


the  national  conscience  is  clear  is  to  be  guilty  of  treach- 
ery. He  preaches  that  it  is  “better  to  plead  the  cause 
of  right  by  shotted  cannon  and  revolvers  than  that  the 
wrong  should  continue  unrebuked.”  11  It  is  “ impossible 
for  them  to  submit  to  arbitration  the  fulfillment  of  their 
imperial  obligations,  and  they  cannot  decline  the  chal- 
lenge to  the  cold,  cruel  arbitrament  of  war.”  12  Some- 
times he  has  not  so  much  as  heard  of  arbitration  and 
The  Hague  International  Convention.  “An  individual 
can  bring  his  case  before  a civil  tribunal  for  judgment, 
but  a nation  has  no  such  court  of  appeal.  There  is 
left  only  the  stern  arbitrament  of  war.”  13 

It  is  thus  that  the  irrational  airs  itself  in  the  gar- 
ments of  argument,  ignorance  puts  forth  pretensions 
to  virtue,  and  sheer  immorality  talks  the  language  of 
religion.  Never  two  brutes  met  on  the  same  narrow 
path  that  did  not  consider  their  colliding  destinies  matter 
enough  for  combat  to  the  death  ; never  two  duelists  who 
did  not  allege  that  they  had  exhausted  the  resources  of 
reason  before  falling  back  upon  the  pistol ; never  a 
Herod  who  did  not  call  the  heavens  to  witness  the  purity 
of  his  motives,  nor  a Caiaphas  who  did  not  declare  it 
expedient  that  one  nation  should  die  for  the  empire, 
nor  a Pilate  who  did  not  publicly  call  for  water  and 
wash  his  hands  in  innocency. 

If,  in  the  last  resort,  the  ecclesiastic  is  driven  from 
every  pretense  of  reason  back  upon  mere  apology,  he 
announces  that  war,  like  wild  beasts  and  earthquakes,  is 
to  be  tolerated  for  its  dispensational  functions  ; which 
is  precisely  the  excuse  alleged  by  Moltke,  that  master 
of  scientific  murder.  Pulpiteers  who  flout  Darwinism 


WAR  CONSIDERED  AS  AN  IMMORALITY  15 


in  the  realm  of  theology  are  heard  to  mouth  imper- 
fect and  unformed  applications  of  it  in  the  sphere  of 
imperialism,  — sometimes  to  idealize  them  into  what 
has  been  justly  stigmatized  as  “impious  hymnology,”  14 
— and  to  proclaim  the  struggle  for  existence  and  the 
survival  of  the  fittest  in  such  ways  as  to  pervert  them 
from  a gospel  of  the  evolutionary  God  into  doctrines 
of  the  devil  of  national  destructions.  They  cannot 
abide  the  ape  as  their  progenitor,  but  are  willing  to  n 
acclaim  the  tiger  as  the  type  of  national  morality. 
Surely  the  Master  of  Christendom  himself  was  mis- 
taken, for  greater  seem  the  beatitudes  of  war  than  those 
of  peace!  “We  have  heard  a great  deal  of  late  about 
the  horrors  of  the  war  in  which  we  were  recently  en- 
gaged. It  is  all  a question  of  imagination.  The  horrors 
of  war  — and  war  is  always  hell  — are  nothing  to  the 
devastations  of  peace.”  15 

Let  it  be  granted  that  war  is  a divine  scourge  upon 
national  sin  ; nothing  is  thereby  conceded  as  to  its 
moral  nature,  for  earthquakes  and  crocodiles,  plagues, 
famines,  and  locusts  are  in  the  same  sense  instruments 
of  divine  chastisement ; yet  we  neither  attribute  moral 
character  to  them,  nor  permit  their  providential  function 
to  stand  in  the  way  of  their  prevention  or  removal. 
And  it  will  not  unseldom  be  found  that  the  sins  for 
which  bloodshed  is  a punishment  are  the  sins  of  greed, 
tyranny,  ambition,  coming  to  a head  in  the  nation  which, 
after  quarrel  sought  and  found,  falls  back  upon  this  last 
argument  of  kings ; whose  very  wars  are  its  punish- 
ments ; which  reaps  from  even  successful  strife  the 
certain  fruits  of  suffering,  death,  impoverishment,  and 


l6 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


social  distress  ; and  which,  all  the  time  that  it  foolishly 
talks  of  being  the  dispenser  of  justice,  itself  lies  under 
the  very  curse  and  judgment  of  heaven.  In  this  sense 
it  is  true  that  war  is  as  fatal  to  the  conquerors  as  to 
the  conquered. 

If  the  carnal  weapon  were  not  as  destructive  of 
intelligence  as  of  morality,  we  should  never  hear  a 
religious  official  commit  himself  to  such  a proposition 
as  this  : “ I would  rather  a man  earned  his  living  by 
fighting  than  by  betting.  ...  I would  rather  a man 
slay  his  neighbor  than  cheat  him.”  16  For  this  involves 
merely  the  comparative  ethics  of  the  fox  and  the  wolf ; 
and  the  true  function  of  religion  is  to  condemn  both, 
not  to  insinuate  that  the  wolf  quality  in  human  nature 
is  a virtue,  by  flinging  the  fox  quality  into  deeper  shade. 
It  admits  of  tedious  and  uncertain  discussion  whether 
the  gambler  who  lives  by  cheating  be  a better  or  worse 
man  than  the  pugilist,  duelist,  bully,  wife  killer,  cut- 
throat, and  all  the  tribe  who  live  by  slaying ; whether 
a Sultan  who  massacres  his  subjects  be  worse  or  better 
than  a Kaiser  who  taxes  them  ; and  whether  the  rev- 
erend speaker  of  so  much  pernicious  nonsense  would 
rather  be  brained  than  burgled,  or  would  prefer  a bul- 
let in  his  skull  to  a button  in  his  collection  plate. 

The  conclusion  is  plain.  Seeing  that  intellect  and 
ecclesiasticism  are  as  helpless  as  politics  to  deliver  us 
from  the  red  scourge,  we  must  fall  back  upon  pure 
ethics.  Since  there  is  no  hope  of  escape  by  the  exercise 
of  the  logical  and  political  faculties,  we  must  pass 
beyond  to  the  practice  of  morality.  We  must  not  go 
on  saying  that  this  war  is  just  or  unjust,  and  that  one 


WAR  CONSIDERED  AS  AN  IMMORALITY  17 


right  or  wrong  ; but  must  boldly  gird  up  our  minds  and 
say  that  all  war  to-day  is  wrong,  that  every  war  is  sin ; 
that  war  need  not  be,  must  not  be,  shall  not  be.  If  the 
Christian  world  had  faith  as  a grain  of  mustard  seed,  it 
could,  within  a week,  make  war  forever  impossible. 

In  default  of  the  appeals  to  p_ity  and  reason  we  turn 
to  considerations  drawn  from  expediency,  only  to  find 
that  we  are  again  leaning  upon  a broken  reed.  The 
political  motive  can  never  prevent  the  resort  to  force. 
Republic  and  monarchy  alike  have  adopted  imperialism 
as  their  ruling  idea,  and  each  makes  the  expansion 
policy  of  the  other  an  excuse  for  increasing  its  own 
armaments ; so  that  every  one  stands  in  the  position 
of  “ bogy  ” to  all  the  rest,  incessantly  raising  the 
standard  of  equipment  and  providing  opportunities 
all  over  the  world  for  bouncing  statesmen,  reckless 
journalists,  fire-eating  ecclesiastics,  and  ambitious  sol- 
diers. Amongst  the  armed  powers  not  a single  voice 
is  bold  enough  to  dissent  from  the  note  of  alarm 
sounded  by  their  leading  statesmen  ; yet  not  a single 
voice  is  brave  enough  to  command  an  absolute  halt. 
Again  and  again  we  are  assured  by  competent  governors 
that  bankruptcy  and  chaos  are  yawning  straight  ahead ; 
yet  these  same  governors  go  on  adding  corps  to  corps, 
ship  to  ship,  debt  to  debt,  with  a recklessness  which  can 
be  explained  only  by  the  strong  saying  that  “ they  needs 
must  whom  the  devil  drives.”  Parliamentarians  and 
journalists  present  us  from  time  to  time  with  figures 
showing  the  millions  of  men  and  the  hundreds  of  mil- 
lions of  money  devoted  to  this  business  of  throat  cutting  ; 


1 8 MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 

yet  these  same  wise  persons  turn  to  denounce  any  who, 
building  on  their  own  figures,  propose  to  put  a stop  to 
this  process  of  suicide  by  slow  bleeding.  It  is  useless 
to  argue  with  our  public  men  upon  the  economic  waste 
//  of  war,  — its  burdens  upon  industry,  waste  of  workers 
and  of  wealth,  drain  upon  the  physical,  intellectual,  and 
financial  energies  of  the  nation,' — for  they  know  it  all 
too  well,  and  meet  every  indisputable  fact  by  the 
despairing  assertion  that  the  burdens  must  be  borne 
if  the  country  is  to  exist  at  all.  They  resemble  men 
who  hang  by  a breaking  rope  upon  the  sheer  side  of  a 
glassy  precipice,  who  can  find  no  way  of  ascent,  nor 
any  foothold  to  prevent  their  fall ; who  can  only  watch 
with  strained  curiosity  whilst  strand  after  strand  gives 
way  above  them,  and  with  still  hearts  wait  the  fatal 
^ plunge.  “ The  emperor  has  diagnosed  an  incurable 
disease.  You  might  as  well  tell  me  that  I am  going 
to  die.  It  is  as  inevitable  as  death.”  17  It  is  vain 
to  point  out  how  the  expenditure  upon  army  and 
navy,  volunteer  and  militia,  new  guns,  new  explo- 
sives, and  new  shooting  ranges  would  be  sufficient  to 
educate  every  child  and  pension  every  worker  within 
the  realms  ; vain  to  protest  against  the  idolatrous  wor- 
ship of  the  military  Moloch  to  whom  we  pass  our  chil- 
dren through  the  fire,  and  who,  having  devoured  our 
children,  proceeds  to  devour  our  substance  also,  — every 
increased  crop  of  the  farmer  and  wage  of  the  worker ; 
for  we  are  met  by  the  last  word  of  politics  in  despair, 
— that  these  hardships  and  dangers  must  be  incurred 
for  the  sake  of  empire.  “ If  this  goes  on,”  said  Gam- 
5*  betta,  “ Europe  will  be  reduced  to  beg  at  the  door  of  the 


WAR  CONSIDERED  AS  AN  IMMORALITY  19 


barracks.”  That  was  five  and  twenty  years  ago,  since 
when  Europe  has  gone  steadily  from  bad  to  worse,  and 
America  with  her  new  imperialism  and  big  navy  has 
flung  her  vast  bulk  to  accelerate  the  swirl  of  the  down- 
sucking maelstrom  of  militarism.  It  is  thus  that  the 
door  slams  to  as  often  as  we  open  it.  Thus  is  destruc- 
tion courted  in  the  name  of  patriotism ; thus  do  we 
enfeeble  ourselves  through  jealous  fear  of  being  thought 
feeble  ; thus  do  we  commit  suicide  in  order  to  avoid 
being  murdered.  In  strictest  truth,  the  nations  are), 
killing  themselves  with  their  own  weapons. 

wolf,  being  desirous  of  crossing  a swollen  river,  //" 
requested  a serpent  to  stretch  himself  from  bank  to 
bank,  so  forming  a bridge  on  which  he  might  safely 
pass  to  the  other  side.  The  devouring  reptile  hearkened 
to  the  four-footed  marauder  ; but  he,  when  he  was  step- 
ping across,  yielded  to  the  instinct  to  snap  at  the  shin- 
ing throat  before  him,  upon  which  the  serpent  thought 
it  proper  to  gratify  the  desire  which  had  been  secretly 
growing  within  him,  opened  his  capacious  jaws,  and 
swallowed  the  aggressor;  whereupon,  being  borne  down 
by  the  sudden  weight  in  his  middle,  he  dropped  into  the 
river  and  was  drowned.  It  is  thus  that  the  marauding 
nations  call  upon  devouring  militarism  to  save  them, 
perish  in  the  very  act  of  killing,  and  perplex  the  specta- 
tor whether  to  call  their  deaths  suicide  or  murder.  v 
Considerations  of  policy  will  always  be  so  strong  as 
to  resist  any  argument  drawn  from  those  wrongs  of  war 
which  we  may  perhaps  call  secondary  — such  as  the  in- 
justice of  slaughtering  in  the  field  those  who  had  no 
hand  in  the  quarrel,  whilst  those  who  nursed  it  sit  safe 


20 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


at  home  ; the  cruelty  of  wasting  the  home  lands  of  those 
who  neither  as  rulers  nor  combatants  are  responsible 
for  the  fighting ; or  the  iniquity  of  taxing  people  at 
home  for  the  prosecution  of  bloodshed  of  which  they 
utterly  disapprove  and  against  which  they  daily  protest. 
The  single  belief  that  the  perpetration  of  these  wrongs 
is  necessary  for  self-preservation  turns  such  weighty 
matter  into  so  many  feathers  in  the  balance. 

Vain  also  is  it  to  urge  upon  men  the  inevitable  con- 
sequence of  every  war,  for  they  know  perfectly  that 
the  fruits  can  never  be  other  than  poverty,  heartbreak, 
and  universal  misery ; they  know  also  that  the  knowl- 
edge will  never  deter  them  from  any  conflict  upon  which 
they  may  set  their  hearts.  A colonial  secretary18  will 
always  be  found  to  speak  in  praise  of  war  as  something 
of  a magnificent  game  in  which  young  and  old,  patriots 
and  sportsmen,  could  imagine  no  more  delightful  posi- 
tion than  to  be  with  one  whose  duties  included  the 
blowing  up  a great  number  of  men  by  driving  them 
over  concealed  mines.  No  argument  drawn  from  the 
sphere  of  utility  — the  expense,  risk,  misery  of  military 
operations  — can  avail,  for  it  will  always  be  silenced 
by  the  expectation  of  counterbalancing  gains  and  endur- 
ing prosperity  after  the  temporary  disadvantages  have 
passed  away.  “ The  only  successful  way  to  encounter 
these  insane  preparations  lies  in  a life-and-death  struggle 
being  carried  on  against  militarism.”  19  In  the  hour  of 
proud  and  prosperous  peace  expediency  will  serve  us 
well  for  flattery  and  fine  writing,  will  nourish  our  self- 
conceits  as  civilized  and  most  Christian  people,  and 
will  give  happy  themes  for  complacent  moralizers  in 


WAR  CONSIDERED  AS  AN  IMMORALITY  21 


magazine  and  pulpit ; but  when  the  trumpet  sounds 
we  shall  be  down  on  all  fours  like  the  brutes. 

The  insufficiency  of  any  appeal  to  the  utilitarian 
principle  may  be  illustrated  by  the  fate  of  the  Peace 
Crusade  initiated  in  Great  Britain  for  the  purpose  of 
eliciting  popular  approval,  both  in  Europe  and  America, 
of  the  Czar  of  Russia’s  Rescript  inviting  the  nations  to 
a conference  on  the  possibility  of  arresting  the  growth 
of  armaments.  That  ecstasy  of  an  hour  — which  might 
have  been  the  glory  of  a millennium  — was  inaugurated 
by  royalty,  ostentatiously  approved  by  every  statesman 
in  the  civilized  world,  trumpeted  by  a unanimous  press 
and  cheered  by  the  chorusing  monthlies,  blessed  by 
the  bishops  and  supported  by  the  organized  forces  of 
the  entire  church  ; yet  in  Britain  it  was  literally  blown 
into  smoke  by  a single  declaration  of  war.  The  Peace 
Crusade  might  reasonably  have  been  expected  to  exer- 
cise a moderating  influence  on  the  passions  that  grow 
to  blood,  since  it  embraced  nearly  all  that  was  respect- 
able and  eminent  in  the  land ; but  at  the  first  blast 
of  the  bugle  all  the  forces  of  expediency  melted  away, 
— all  the  dukes  and  earls,  all  the  mayors  and  pro- 
vosts, all  the  aldermen  and  councilors,  journalists  and 
magistrates,  bishops  and  pulpiteers,  — the  platforms 
that  had  once  known  them  knew  them  no  more  ; and 
the  dismal  work  of  carrying  on  a peace  propaganda 
during  the  progress  of  a popular  war  was  left  to  the 
old  forces  of  morality,  backed  only  by  a journalist, 
a politician,  or  a preacher,  here  and  there,  together 
with  such  scratch  allies  as  they  succeeded,  for  other 


22 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


reasons,  in  attaching  to  the  cause.  Bitter  experience 
caused  many  to  say,  with  one  of  these,  “ I am  glad  to 
have  the  opportunity  of  expressing  my  disdain  for  the 
preachers  who  mask  as  Hague  Conference  men  in  the 
dog  days,  and  have  developed  into  prancing  jingoes 
by  Christmas  time.”  20  Never  in  the  history  of  man- 
I kind  had  expediency  such  an  opportunity.  The  Peace 
Crusade  was  launched  to  back  the  well-meant  proposal 
of  a proud  master  of  legions,  proclaimed  by  men  who 
boasted  their  faith  in  arms,  their  pride  of  empire,  and 
their  jealousy  for  the  honor  of  their  countries  ; it  an- 
nounced that  it  gave  no  abstract  pronouncement  on  the 
question  of  war,  — whether  or  not  it  was  wrong  and 
unjustifiable,  — but  started  from  obvious  facts  and 
aimed  at  specific  feasible  ends  ; it  gloried  in  having  no 
utopian  or  idealistic  aim,  in  being  nothing  if  not 
practical  and  businesslike ; and  it  was  commended  and 
set  forth  by  advocates  who  ostentatiously  prefaced  their 
speeches  by  declarations  that  they  were  not  “ peace-at- 
any-price  ” men.  The  Peace  Crusade,  it  was  intimated 
with  determination,  would  not,  whatever  else  it  did, 
“ run  amok”  at  the  idea  of  a supreme  navy21  — nay,  it 
openly  disclaimed  every  hope  of  abolishing  war,  of 
reducing  navies  by  a single  gunboat,  or  armies  by  a 
single  regiment,  but  professed  only  the  humble  hope  of 
persuading  the  nations  to  stop  just  where  they  were; 
with  the  result  that  every  military  power  subsequently 
made  a positive  addition  to  its  armaments,  as  well  as 
accelerated  the  rate  of  increase,  so  that  the  last  state 
was  worse  than  the  first ; and  with  the  further  result  that 
Great  Britain  finally  punctuated  its  peace  speeches  by 


WAR  CONSIDERED  AS  AN  IMMORALITY  23 


a challenge  to  fight.  The  Peace  Crusade  was  run  by 
the  “ practical”  man  because  it  was  no  wild  scheme  of 
visionaries  and  enthusiasts ; supported  by  the  practical 
man  because  it  discounted  the  foolish  peace  man  who 
wanted  to  disband  armies  ; patronized  for  three  whole 
months  by  the  practical  shopkeepers  of  Europe  because 
it  was  a beautiful  scheme  for  giving  peace  without 
abolishing  war.  Had  the  genial  deceit  prospered,  we 
might  next  have  expected  a beautiful  ecclesiastical 
scheme  for  producing  holiness  without  terminating  the 
pleasing  luxury  of  sin.  That  was  why  the  Peace  Crusade 
could  be  stigmatized,  with  reasons  given,  as  “likely  to 
become  an  organized  hypocrisy,”  22  and  why  it  so  shame-/ 
fully  collapsed.  It  stood  for  expediency,  whilst  noth- 
ing but  principle  can  prevent  war ; it  was  founded  on 
opportunism,  whilst  war  can  be  successfully  opposed 
only  from  the  ground  of  rightness;  it  represented  policy, 
and  war  can  be  abolished  by  nothing  short  of  gospel. 
A proposal  to  reduce  armaments  and  alleviate  the 
extremer  miseries  of  the  battlefield  could  not  but  fail; 
for  it  was  to  this  extent  a hypocrisy, — that  it  did  not 
go  down  to  the  moral  root ; that  it  was  unaccompanied 
by  any  view  of  the  inherent  crime  and  sin  of  war ; and 
that  it  left  the  peoples  subject  to  all  the  former  blood 
lusts,  panics,  scares,  sophistries,  and  crafts  of  wicked 
politicians  whereby  they  lie  in  wait  to  deceive. 

Certain  reviewers  did  not  find  themselves  able  to 
agree  with  the  view  of  the  Peace  Crusade  taken  by  the 
writer,  partly  because  they  did  not  have  his  intimate 
experience  of  it,  and  partly  because  they  confused  the 


24 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


Crusade  with  the  Czar’s  Rescript  which  preceded  it, 
and  The  Hague  Conference  with  The  Hague  Convention 
which  succeeded  it.  With  regard  to  the  first  point,  the 
writer’s  experiences  were  too  acute  and  too  accurate 
for  him  to  mistake  their  significance.  He  was  one  of 
those  who  flung  himself  into  the  Crusade  headlong,  took 
a leading  part  in  organizing  it  in  his  district,  succeeded 
in  bringing  together  the  public  men  of  his  neighbor- 
hood in  a town’s  meeting,  brought  the  chief  crusader 
to  address  it,  and  kept  the  organization  moving  for  a 
month  or  two.  What  then  happened  ? All  the  world 
knows  that  Great  Britain  then  found  herself  at  war.  In 
simple  faithfulness  to  the  Crusade  principles  the  writer 
deemed  it  his  duty  to  invite  the  more  prominent  cru- 
saders in  his  district  to  unite  with  him  in  an  appeal  to 
the  government  to  exhaust  every  possible  resource  of 
diplomacy  before  proceeding  to  draw  the  sword,  only  to 
find,  with  astonishment  and  anguish,  that  every  single 
man  of  them  refused.  All  were  prepared  to  condemn 
war  in  general ; but  this  war — their  country’s  war — that 
was  a different  thing ! The  writer,  after  lapse  of  time 
and  mature  reflection,  finds  himself  unable  to  deduct  a 
single  syllable  from  his  condemnation  of  the  princi- 
ples of  expediency  and  opportunism  which  underlay  the 
Crusade.  It  had  no  root  in  conscience  or  deepness  of 
earth  in  a sense  of  national  guilt ; hence  when  tribula- 
tion and  persecution  arose  because  of  the  word  the  vast 
majority  of  its  adherents  were  offended.  All  this  with- 
out questioning  for  a moment,  while  indeed  joyfully 
recognizing,  that  many  unpaltering  friends  of  peace 
rallied  to  the  movement,  contributing  the  force  of  their 


WAR  CONSIDERED  AS  AN  IMMORALITY  25 


convictions ; and  it  was  due  to  their  deeper  moral  per- 
ceptions  and  abiding  faithfulness  to  moral  principle 
that  the  tidal  wave  of  the  Crusade,  which  rose  so  high 
in  the  spring  of  1899  and  raced  away  out  war- ward  in 
the  autumn  of  the  same  year,  left  behind  it,  high  up  on 
the  shores  of  the  British  Islands,  some  precious  residuum 
of  peace  impulse. 

These  opinions  refer  expressly  and  solely  to  the 
popular  movement  of  1899  called  the  Peace  Crusade. 
That  movement  originated  in  London,  and  was  organized 
for  the  purpose  of  backing  by  popular  sentiment  the 
Czar’s  Rescript  of  1898.  It  aimed  at  stimulating  the 
interest  of  Europe  and  America  in  the  Czar’s  nobly- 
meant  endeavor  to  shackle  the  giant  of  militarism. 
The  summer  of  1899  brought  the  sequel  to  the  Rescript 
in  the  International  Conference  at  The  Hague,  and 
from  this  Conference  proceeded  The  Hague  Convention ; 
which  Convention  provides  for  international  commis- 
sions of  inquiry,  a permanent  court  of,  and  a complete 
code  of  procedure  for,  international  arbitration.  In 
several  cases  already  these  provisions  have  kept  the 
thirsty  sword  in  its  scabbard,  and  we  may  well  rejoice, 
in  the  words  of  a distinguished  American  citizen,  that 
“ the  law  of  nations  took  a step  so  momentous  and 
sublime,  . . . the  distinctive  historical  event  and  the 
crowning  ^lory  of  the  present  age.”  23 

While  glorying  in  every  forward  step,  however,  it 
is  none  the  less  necessary  to  keep  our  feet  on  sound 
principle  and  our  eye  on  the  further  goal.  Policies  of 
restriction  cannot  be  trusted  as  if  they  were  gospels  of 
abolition  ; and  while  the  deeply-motived  friend  of  peace 


26 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


may  not  refuse  his  help  to  any  restrictive  movement, 
he  will  reserve  his  homage  for  the  principle  that  alone 
abolishes  all  and  every  war.  Never  must  any  politic 
movement  be  permitted  to  turn  men’s  eyes  away  from 
the  true  and  only  way  of  escape.  From  “utility”  comes 
no  ultimate  salvation  ; for  utility  itself  is  in  despair. 
“ These  things  are  well  known  to  all  the  rulers  and 
nations  of  the  world.  They  stand  numbed.”24  From  the 
highest  mount  of  expediency  the  situation  has  been 
surveyed  by  one  of  the  versed  diplomatists  of  Europe, 
who  declares  that  the  conditions  are  hopeless  and  in- 
curable ; that  nothing  can  stop  the  ever  quickening  swirl 
of  the  nations  towards  militarism,  bankruptcy,  and 
ruin.  In  this  fearful  pass  no  half  measures  will  avail, 
no  policies  or  diplomacies  can  save  us  : the  cure  must  be 
radical.  Acceptance  of  the  peace  principle,  recognition 
of  the  moral  obligation  to  suffer  rather  than  to  sin  — 
this  or  Armageddon.  Light  only  can  dispel  darkness. 
Christ  alone  can  dethrone  Mars  ; God  only  can  displace 
Satan.  The  principles  of  utility,  rationality,  expediency, 
and  the  rest  have  failed.  The  moral  nature  of  man 
Y must  now  be  roused  to  a sense  of  the  vast  prerogatives 
with  which  its  evolution  through  the  ages  has  endowed 
it.  “Neither  is  there  salvation  in  any  other;  for  there 
is  none  other  name  under  heaven  given  among  men 
whereby  we  must  be  saved.”  # 

So  small  a good  as  partial  disarmament  is  more  than 
can  be  secured  on  the  lines  of  expediency,  which  can- 
didly admits  that  it  will  not  attempt  to  reduce  arma- 
ments until  such  reduction  can  be  proved  to  be  feasible 


WAR  CONSIDERED  AS  AN  IMMORALITY  27 

and  safe,  — that  is,  never  ; for  only  to  the  man  who 
has  faith  in  moral  obligation  and  moral  forces  will  an 
experiment  so  tremendous  ever  appear  either  safe  or 
feasible.  Partial  disarmament  is  only  another  name  for 
sufficient  armament,  and  armed  truce  for  armed  pre- 
paredness ; whilst  peace  can  be  maintained  only  through 
the  faith  that  worketh  by  love.  But,  instead  of  faith 
and  love,  we  have  a cruel  jealousy  which  paralyzes 
every  movement  towards  reduction  of  arms,  which 
causes  every  nation  to  wait  till  its  traditional  enemy 
takes  the  first  step,  and  which  must  inevitably  keep 
them  waiting  till  the  momentum  of  accelerating  increase 
drives  them  into  the  next  great  conflict.  All  question 
of  partial  and  mutual  decrease  is  made  impossible  in  I 
advance  by  the  jealous  fear  lest  on  the  back  of  what- 
ever agreement  might  be  come  to,  some  Napoleon  or 
Bismarck  should  arise  who  would  grasp  the  thunder, 
shatter  his  half-armed  opponents,  and  rise  to  universal 
power  on  the  ruins  of  their  pacific  folly.  The  rulers 
do  plainly  see  at  the  bottom  of  society  discontent 
ripening  into  despair  and  despair  into  anarchy,  but 
feel  themselves  powerless  to  divert  to  channels  of  social 
redemption  those  millions  which  are  now  devoted  to 
engines  of  destruction ; for  as  long  as  force  is  the 
recognized  basis  of  government,  so  long  will  governing 
bodies  be  compelled  to  make  that  force  as  great  and 
resistless  as  they  can.  They  are  under  perpetual  com- 
pulsion to  defend  what  they  have  already  taken,  and 
frequently  can  preserve  that  only  by  taking  more ; so 
that  they  have  no  choice.  That  is  why  they  are  in 
despair. 


28 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


Even  the  rational  hope  of  securing  peace  by  arbitra- 
tion is  rendered  null  and  void  by  the  vicious  principle 
of  expediency.  Governments  invariably  plead  a good 
cause,  and  they  w6uld  not  be  likely  to  consent  to  an 
arbitration  which  they  had  reason  to  fear  might  go 
against  them,  for  that  would  bring  on  them  — should 
they  defy  the  decision  — the  odium  of  fighting  in  disdain 
of  the  opinion  of  the  civilized  world.  If  they  had  an 
obviously  bad  cause,  they  would  be  still  less  likely  to 
court  the  condemnation  of  the  civilized  powers  ; whilst 
the  worst  cause  that  ever  disgraced  a nation’s  annals 
would  not  prevent  it  drawing  the  sword  where  its  selfish- 
ness was  enlisted.  The  politician  25  would  assert  that, 
“ You  cannot  arbitrate  on  broad  questions  of  policy 
any  more  than  on  questions  of  national  honor”;  and 
the  journalist,26  “We  know  so  well  all  the  ramifications 
of  those  arbitration  courts,  and  prefer  the  shorter  and 
far  more  impartial  arbitrament  of  the  sword.”  The 
long  array  of  arbitration  settlements  which  shed  a starry 
brightness  amid  the  martial  gloom  of  the  nineteenth 
century  points  to  the  emergence  of  a truer  moral  con- 
ception of  the  attitude  of  nations  one  towards  another. 

The  difference  between  an  immoral  act  and  one  that 
is  merely  inexpedient  is  that,  whilst  the  latter  admits 
of  definition  and  qualification,  the  former  admits  only 
of  direct  condemnation.  That  which  is  expedient  is 
permissible  in  degrees  and  under  conditions  to  be  as- 
certained ; the  immoral  has  only  to  be  abandoned.  The 
ethical  admits  of  no  modification:  it  is  absolute.  Hence 
it  is  that  attempts  to  regulate  war,  being  based  on  its 


WAR  CONSIDERED  AS  AN  IMMORALITY  29 


expediency  and  permissibility,  have  been  essential  fail- 
ures, and  must  continue  to  be  so.  Every  attempt  to 
humanize  it  has  been  attended  with  slender  success,  — 
the  soldier  on  the  field  showing  a tendency  to  revert  to 
the  methods  natural  to  his  trade,  in  defiance  of  the  rules 
drawn  up  by  the  diplomatists  in  pacific  conference. 
“ War  is  hell  ” is  a proposition  found  rather  more  fre- 
quently on  the  lips  of  its  advocates  than  of  its  oppo- 
nents ; but  whereas  these  latter  with  logical  and  ethical 
consistency  deduce  the  inference  that  their  duty  is  to 
abolish  it,  the  former  draw  the  illogical  and  immoral 
conclusion  that  its  extremest  cruelties  and  horrors  are 
to  be  accepted  and  condoned,  as  things  inseparable 
from  a thing  inevitable.  “War  is  hell,”  exclaim  the 
angels ; “ therefore  we  must  extinguish  and  put  an  end 
to  it.”  “War  is  hell,”  mutter  the  demons;  “therefore 
we  must  not  be  shocked  by  atrocities,  but  expect  them 
as  a matter  of  course,  and  cast  no  reflections  upon 
those  who  keep  hell  going  by  deeds  natural  to  it.” 
Unless  war  be  held  sinful  in  its  very  nature  and  essence, 
it  will  be  found  useless  to  impugn  any  particular  act 
of  war ; for  if  it  be  justifiable  to  kill  at  all,  it  cannot  be 
utterly  unjustifiable  to  kill  by  one  method  rather  than  by 
another.  If  morality  sanctions  the  killing  of  a hostile 
leader,  why  may  not  policy  excuse  the  desecration  of 
his  remains?  If  ethics  authorize  a barbarian  and  his 
hordes  to  be  smashed,  why  may  not  politics  legalize 
the  killing  of  his  wounded?  The  clerical  apologist  will 
joyfully  seize  upon  the  false  premise  to  condone  the 
most  barbarous  practical  conclusion  : “ If  the  Crusade 
was  against  war  in  the  abstract,  . . . but  assuming 


30 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


that  war  may  be  justified  by  necessity,  the  whole  ques- 
tion of  the  policy  of  smashing  the  Mahdi  becomes  an 
open  question  so  far  as  morals  are  concerned.  ...  If 
we  can  condone  the  slaughter  of  six  thousand  men,  it 
appears  childish  to  appear  to  scruple  about  the  desecra- 
tion of  a grave,  if  the  general  in  command  thought  it 
would  conduce  to  the  same  end  as  the  shooting  down 
of  the  living  men.”  27  It  is  true  that  men  do  not  openly 
acclaim  these  logical  conclusions ; but,  calling  them  by 
finer  names,  the  soldier  acts  upon  them,  and  the  politi- 
cian, under  various  plausible  pretexts,  condones  them. 
The  most  highly  civilized  nations  have  begun  to  take  no 
effective  thought  for  so  much  as  the  horses  employed 
in  battle,  and  the  case  of  these  beautiful  friends  of 
man  is,  in  some  respects,  yet  more  pitiable  than  that 
of  the  men.  The  human  combatants,  at  any  rate,  fight 
with  knowledge  of  their  deed  and  its  consequences,  and 
have  the  possibility  of  “ glory  ” and  reward  to  sustain 
them  ; but  these  innocent  creatures  perish  in  heaps, 
amid  the  most  indescribable  conditions  of  untended 
anguish.  If  only  for  the  sake  of  these  most  noble  and 
lovable  of  created  beings,  it  were  time  to  abolish  war.28 

Attempts  to  humanize  war  and  bring  it  within  the 
pale  of  morality  are  on  the  same  plane  of  effort  as  those 
sometimes  made  to  regulate  other  vices.  To  abolish 
drunkenness  by  regulating  drink  has  not,  up  to  the 
present,  proved  a very  hopeful  enterprise.  To  abolish 
drink  is  found  to  be  the  only  way  to  abolish  drunken- 
ness ; to  prohibit  fighting  will  be  found  the  only  way 
to  prevent  war.  Similarly  it  has  been  found  that  every 
attempt  to  regulate  vice  has  resulted  in  giving  new 


WAR  CONSIDERED  AS  AN  IMMORALITY  31 

sanctions  to  licentiousness.  To  regulate  fornication  has 
been  found  as  impracticable  as  to  regulate  drunkenness, 
and  for  the  same  reason, — that  it  is  not  an  impolicy, 
but  an  immorality.  So  it  has  been  discovered  in  the 
case  of  other  evils,  — polygamy,  for  example,  and  slav- 
ery, — whose  passage  from  policy  to  ethics  can  be 
clearly  traced,  and  which  have  been  transformed  from 
inexpediencies  into  immoralities  by  a process  which 
admits  of  definition.  When  it  has  been  found  possible 
to  make  fornication  pure,  drunkenness  temperate,  polyg- 
amy monogamous,  slavery  free,  it  will  be  hopeful  to 
attempt  to  make  war  moral.  But  just  as  we  have  dis- 
covered that  these  evils  refuse  to  be  regulated,  and  have 
thus  learned  that  they  are  not  mere  inexpediencies  ad- 
mitting of  modification,  but  immoralities  to  be  classed 
amongst  the  absolutely  forbidden,  — so  we  are  com- 
pelled to  conclude  that,  because  war  refuses  to  be 
humanized  and  regulated,  to  adapt  itself  to  our  defini- 
tions or  conform  to  our  theories,  but  insists  on  going 
its  own  wild  way,  breaking  our  bands  asunder  and  cast- 
ing away  our  cords  from  it,  therefore  it  demands  to  be 
transferred  from  the  region  of  policy  to  that  of  ethics, 
to  be  pronounced  immoral  always,  and  not  merely  inex- 
pedient sometimes. 

Some  earnest  persons  there  may  be  who,  while 
agreeing  with  the  view  of  war  here  taken,  may  be  dis- 
posed to  hope  for  its  entire  abandonment  rather  from 
the  development  of  personal  character  than  from  any 
definite  change  in  public  morals ; but  the  hope  is 
surely  ill-founded,  for  public  slaughter  has  hitherto  been 


32 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


thought  entirely  compatible  with  the  loftiest  private 
morality.  The  advocate  of  peace  does  not  claim  greater 
personal  goodness  than  many  of  the  advocates  of  war, 
or  some  of  its  actual  makers ; he  claims  only  to  have 
carried  the  principles  of  public  ethics  into  a sphere 
from  which  they  have  hitherto  been  excluded.  He 
merely  dissents  from  the  newspaper  proposition  that 
the  conceptions  of  right  and  wrong,  and  their  conse- 
quences, have  to  be  applied  with  a difference  to  the 
affairs  of  nations.29  By  some  monstrous  paradox,  the 
possession  of  the  greatest  personal  gentleness  does  not 
seem  to  restrain  its  possessor  from  committing  or  abet- 
ting public  murder.  Men  otherwise  gentle,  generous, 
affectionate,  who  would  not  kill  a fly,  who  would  rather 
perish  than  put  so  much  as  a cat  to  death  in  cold  blood, 
will,  when  a government  sounds  the  tocsin,  go  forth  to 
slaughter  the  innocent  without  remorse,  willingly  per- 
suading themselves  that  the  enemy  are  worthy  of  death, 
obedient  only  to  the  military  oath  that  absolves  them 
from  decision,  resting  in  a fancied  irresponsibility,  and 
calmly  committing  deeds  before  performing  which  in 
their  private  capacity  they  would  suffer  a thousand 
deaths. 

But  perhaps  the  symptom  most  discouraging  to  those 
who  were  looking  to  the  growth  of  personal  goodness 
to  put  a period  to  international  violence  is  the  effect  of 
the  war  fever  upon  the  women  of  a nation.  Amongst 
public  experiences  none  is  more  terrible  than  the  rever- 
sion to  savagery  of  those  whom  men,  without  irony, 
denominate  “the  gentler”  sex.  When  sentence  goes 
forth  against  the  enemy  our  women  also  turn  thumbs 


WAR  CONSIDERED  AS  AN  IMMORALITY  33 


down.  Women  otherwise  gentle  and  girls  otherwise 
delicate  lust  for  blood,  just  like  the  men  ; glory  in 
slaughter,  just  like  the  men  ; drink  in  calumny  and  lies, 
just  like  the  men  ; vomit  out  hatred,  malice,  and  all  un- 
charitableness, just  like  the  men;  burn  to  spread  that 
kind  of  patriotism  which  implies  fighting.  Great  is  the 
sin  of  our  women. 

There  is  but  slight  hope  that  the  spread  of  general 
enlightenment  will  induce  the  civilized  world  to  aban- 
don the  sword  as  the  method  of  settling  its  disputes  ; 
for  the  men  and  women  who,  in  a general  way,  are 
most  enlightened  become  often  little  less  irrational  and 
immoral  than  the  rest  when  the  bugle  blows  ; nor  are 
superior  education,  impeccable  churchmanship,  and  ripe 
culture  found  to  dissuade  men  a whit  better  than 
general  ignorance,  nonchurchgoing,  and  slum  life. 
Educated  people  go  about  in  the  pages  of  the  month- 
lies, asking  in  a perplexed  way  how  the  problem  of  war 
is  to  be  solved,  — as  if  war  could  ever  be  solved  except 
by  being  abandoned,  — juggling  with  their  own  reason, 
acting  like  men  who  wish  to  believe  a lie,  going  about 
begging  to  know  the  truth  they  are  all  the  time  shut- 
ting out  from  their  minds.  There  is  only  one  way  of 
escaping  war,  — the  simple  way  of  immediately  ceasing 
to  wage  or  to  prepare  to  wage  it.  Even  a Hebrew 
psalmist  had  moral  sense  to  perceive  the  inconsistency 
of  those  who  “ talk  of  peace,  but  make  them  ready 
for  battle”;  and  surely  they  are  a gross  anachronism 
after  two  thousand  years  of  the  Christ.  The  reproach 
of  Thomas  a Kempis  falls  heavily  on  the  glozing 


34 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


V 


warmongers  of  this  generation  : “ How  many  are  there 
who  profess  to  long  for  peace ; how  few  who  are  ready 
to  adopt  the  only  means  of  obtaining  it ! ” The  same 
men  do  not  approach  assassination  or  rape  as  problems, 
but  as  crimes;  yet  they  will  not  see  that  armed  violence 
must  continue  as  long  as  men  approach  it  as  a problem 
to  be  solved  rather  than  a crime  to  be  abandoned.  It  is 
educated  people  who  bring  their  knowledge  of  history 
and  law  to  define  justifiable  war,  and  who,  when  the 
crisis  does  not  answer  to  their  definition,  are  carried 
away  by  the  fiery  passion  of  the  hour,  in  defiance  alike 
of  the  teaching  of  history  and  the  decisions  of  law. 


/ 


“There  has  never  been  such  justification  for  an  appeal 
to  arms”30  will  be  their  excited  verdict  upon  a pitiable 


foreign  blunder  for  which  ample  amendment  follows  as 
matter  of  course.  It  is  the  educated  people  who  first 
define  wars,  then  vote  them,  then  wage  them;  keep- 
ing the  less  informed  proletariat  to  it  all  the  time 
by  innumerable  sophistries  and  delusions.  There  is  no 
hope  in  mere  intellectual  enlightenment ; the  appeal 
must  not  be  to  intellect,  but  to  conscience.  “It  is  not 
in  a change  of  institutions  that  we  must  put  confidence, 
but  in  a new  spirit,  — a change  in  the  mind  and  temper 
of  man,  . . . a higher,  deeper  faith, — a faith  which  be- 
lieves in  equity  among  nations,  as  among  individuals, 
and  looks  forward  in  that  spirit  to  the  realization  of 
that  peace  which  should  be  indeed  founded  upon  and 
allied  with  righteousness.” 31  “The  apostle  of  the 
y twentieth  century  will  create  a national  conscience  on 
war  as  powerful  as  that  which  abolished  slavery  in  the 
nineteenth  century.  It  will  then  be  clearly  seen  that 


WAR  CONSIDERED  AS  AN  IMMORALITY  35 


the  appeal  to  the  sword  is  positively  unreasonable  and 
immoral.”  32 

It  is  with  war  as  it  has  been  with-  all  other  movements 
which  rose  out  of  the  political  into  the  ethical,  — 
such  as  popular  education,  anticorn  laws,  extended 
franchise,  religious  freedom,  abolition  of  slavery, — 
regarding  which  an  eminent  writer  on  social  evolution 
remarks  that  they  were  opposed  by  the  intellectual  and 
educated  classes  in  Great  Britain,  and  continues,  “The 
motive  force  behind  the  long  list  of  progressive  measures 
carried  during  this  period  [the  nineteenth  century]  has 
in  scarcely  any  appreciable  measure  come  from  the 
educated  classes  ; it  has  come  almost  exclusively  from 
the  middle  and  lower  classes,  who  have  in  turn  acted, 
not  under  the  stimulus  of  intellectual  motives,  but  under 
the  influence  of  their  altruistic  feelings.”  83  War  cannot 
be  prevented  except  on  the  ground  that  it  is  immoral, 
that  it  is  contrary  to  human  ethics,  that  it  violates 
divine  law,  — that,  in  a word,  it  is  sin. 

It  is  true  that  all  the  orthodox  politicians  and  impe- 
rial preachers,  the  conventional  people  and  the  practical 
men,  decline  to  discuss  the  peace  principle  seriously, 
and  wave  it  aside  as  a mere  benevolence,  — the  impulse 
of  impractical,  however  amiable,  people  ; but  the  fore- 
going review  of  the  alternatives  confirms  faith  in  moral 
force.  The  moralities  are  the  only  concrete  moving 
powers  in  the  whole  world,  and  without  them  no  mighty 
uplifting  of  the  human  spirit  has  ever  taken  place.  In 
comparison  with  them  all  questions  of  intellectual 
enlightenment  are  like  incandescent  lamps  beside 


36 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


blazing  furnaces,  — coldly  clear,  but  generating  no  mo- 
tive power  ; all  questions  of  calculation  and  expediency 
are  like  efforts  to  bind  giants  with  thread,  and  put  out 
hell  fire  with  toy  squirts.  Let  the  lower  motives  essay 
the  diminution  of  war,  and  demonstrate  their  inability 
to  bring  bloodshed  to  an  end  ; but  let  religion  continue 
to  urge  forward  that  absolute  ethics  which  has  power 
in  it  to  bring  both  public  and  private  affairs  into  the 
same  moral  category  and  make  them  keep  step  to  the 
music  of  man’s  evolving  spiritual  consciousness.  “They 
who  defend  war,”  says  Erasmus,  “must  defend  the  dis- 
positions which  lead  to  war,  and  these  dispositions  are 
absolutely  forbidden  by  the  gospel.”  34  This  the  Lol- 
lards clearly  perceived  (like  many  others  before  them) 
when  they  petitioned  the  parliament  of  their  day  “that 
war  might  be  declared  unchristian.”  35  But  since  the 
gospel  forbids  the  dispositions  which  make  war,  it  for- 
bids war  ; and  war  is  therefore  irreligious,  war  is  im- 
moral, war  is  sin.  If  we  reject  the  decisions  of  our 
developed  moral  nature,  which  of  our  gods  of  expe- 
diency, or  rationality,  or  utility,  will  save  us  ? We 
must  continue  to  wander  in  the  wilderness  created  by 
our  own  immoral  principles  and  unfraternal  passions 
till  we  perish,  like  those  ancients  who  could  not  enter 
into  rest  because  of  unbelief.  “ How  shall  we  escape  if 
we  neglect  so  great  salvation  ? ” 


WAR  CONSIDERED  AS  AN  IMMORALITY  37 


REFERENCES 

1.  Edwin  D.  Mead,  The  Principles  of  the  Founders,  p.  29. 

2.  Paradise  Lost,  Bk.  II. 

3.  War  against  War,  p.  140. 

4.  Ibid.,  p.  43. 

5.  Constituante,  May  22,  1790. 

6.  Spectator,  London,  April  20,  1901. 

7.  Ernest  H.  Crosby. 

8.  Bishop  of  Derby,  Punch,  London,  (about)  November,  1893. 

9.  Dr.  MacGregor,  Edinburgh  Evening  News,  May,  1900. 

10.  University  Sermons,  p.  10 1. 

11.  Rev.  Bernard  Snell,  New  Age,  London,  February  20,  1902. 

12.  Bishop  of  Durham,  January  7,  1900. 

13.  Dean  of  St.  Andrews,  May  5,  1903. 

14.  Note  on  Impious  Hymnology. — You  have  all  been  reading 
during  the  last  months  of  war.  A word  on  that.  An  eminent  man  quoted 
the  other  day  somebody  who,  he  said,  was  an  eminent  divine,  a great 
dignitary  of  the  church.  I do  not  know  who  he  was.  He  wrote  : 

They  say  that  war  is  hell  — the  great  accursed, 

The  sin  impossible  to  be  forgiven ; 

And  yet  I look  beyond  it  at  its  worst, 

And  still  find  blue  in  heaven. 

And,  when  I note  how  nobly  nations  form 
’Neath  the  red  rain  of  war,  I deem  it  true 

That  He  who  gave  the  earthquake  and  the  storm 
Perchance  made  battle  too. 

[Protestant  Archbishop  of  Armagh, 

The  Times,  London,  October  31,  1899] 

Ah,  they  may  mock  us  peacemongers  ! Now,  turn  from  this — I must 
call  it  impious  hymnology — [“Hear!  hear!”  and  cheers]  — turn  to  two 
sentences  which  I read  on  the  same  day  on  which  I read  those  verses. 
This  is  after  the  fall  of  Port  Arthur : “ In  the  streets  of  St.  Peters- 
burg mournful  groups  and  desolate  faces  are  met  with  everywhere. 
Heartbreaking  scenes  have  taken  place  at  the  Admiralty,  where  wives 
and  sisters  of  the  Port  Arthur  heroes  gathered  to  learn  the  fate  of  their 
loved  ones.”  That  is  one  sentence.  Think  of  the  hymn,  and  then  of 
this : “ In  these  fierce  hand-to-hand  fights  men  grappled,  raged,  and 
tore  each  other  like  beasts,  biting,  clawing,  and  gouging  each  other’s 
eyes  out.”  You  see  it.  It  is  not  the  soft  closing  words  of  pulpit  and 


33 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


poetic  diction.  That  is  what  war  is. — John  Morley,  M.P.,  Brechin, 
January  18,  1905. 

15.  Rev.  R.  J.  Campbell,  November  1,  1903. 

16.  Canon  Tucker,  Sydney  Bulletin. 

17.  Lord  Salisbury  (?),  War  against  War,  p.  3. 

18.  Alfred  Lyttelton,  M.P.,  November  7,  1899. 

19.  Socialist  Manifesto,  Munich,  February,  1899. 

20.  Rev.  T.  G.  Selby. 

21.  W.  T.  Stead,  War  against  War,  pp.  1,  5,  108  et passim. 

22.  Michael  Davitt,  War  against  War,  p.  39. 

23.  Edwin  D.  Mead,  Prmciples  of  the  Founders , pp.  23,  33. 

24.  John  Morley,  M.P. 

25.  Lord  Milner,  New  Age,  October  10,  1901. 

26.  St.  fames'  Gazette,  London. 

27.  Rev.  D.  W.  Sitwell,  War  against  War,  p.  115. 

28.  See  M.  Zola’s  terrible  story  of  the  Franco-German  war, 
La  Debacle. 

29.  Westminster  Gazette , London,  October  22,  1902. 

30.  George  Meredith,  Review  of  Reviews,  London,  Vol.  XXX, 
P-  455- 

31.  Leonard  Courtney,  June  23,  1904. 

32.  Rev.  J.  Talalun  Newton. 

33.  Benjamin  Kidd,  Social  Evolution,  p.  236. 

34.  Jonathan  Dymond,  War,  p.  33. 

35.  J.  R.  Green,  Short  History  of  the  English  People , p.  253. 


THE  MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR  TO 
THE  NATION 


He  asked  me  what  were  the  usual  causes  or  motives  that  made 
one  country  go  to  war  with  another.  I answered  they  were  innumer- 
able, but  I should  only  mention  a few  of  the  chief.  Sometimes  the 
ambition  of  princes,  who  never  think  they  have  land  or  people  enough 
to  govern  ; sometimes  the  corruption  of  ministers,  who  engage  their 
masters  in  a war  in  order  to  stifle  or  divert  the  clamour  of  the  subjects 
against  their  evil  administration.  . . . Sometimes  the  quarrel  between 
two  princes  is  to  decide  which  of  them  shall  dispossess  a third  of  his 
dominions,  where  neither  of  them  pretend  to  any  right.  Sometimes  one 
prince  quarrelleth  with  another  for  fear  the  other  should  quarrel  with 
him.  Sometimes  a war  is  entered  upon  because  the  enemy  is  too  strong 
and  sometimes  because  he  is  too  weak.  Sometimes  our  neighbours 
want  the  things  which  we  have,  or  have  the  things  which  we  want  ; and 
we  both  fight,  till  they  take  ours  or  give  us  theirs.  ...  It  is  justifiable 
to  enter  into  war  against  our  nearest  ally  when  one  of  his  towns  lies 
convenient  for  us,  or  a territory  of  land  that  would  render  our  domin- 
ions round  and  complete.  If  a prince  sends  forces  into  a nation  where 
the  people  are  poor  and  ignorant,  he  may  lawfully  put  half  of  them 
to  death  and  make  slaves  of  the  rest  in  order  to  civilize  and  reduce 
them  from  their  barbarous  way  of  living.  . . . Poor  nations  are  hun- 
gry, and  rich  nations  are  proud  ; and  pride  and  hunger  will  ever  be  at 
variance.  — Swift. 


II 


THE  MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR  TO  THE 
NATION 

Since  Ruskin  delivered  himself  of  that  noblest  of 
human  pleas  for  the  greatest  of  human  follies,  — The 
Crown  of  Wild  Olive , — the  pestilent  heresy  that  war 
is  in  some  way  beneficial  to  the  moral  nature  of  man, 
which  had  lurked,  maggotlike,  in  the  brain,  has,  like  the 
gay  enfranchised  butterfly,  almost  ventured  to  take  a 
place  amongst  the  recognized  and  established  facts  of 
life.  The  facts,  however,  are  on  the  side  of  the  contrary 
proposition.  War  is  wholly  injurious  to  man’s  moral 
nature,  degrading  rather  than  regenerating  him,  devas- 
tating rather  than  civilizing,  and  producing  more  and 
deeper  evils  than  it  proposes  to  remedy.  In  attempting 
to  remove  a political  grievance,  it  begets  moral  guilt  ; 
professing  to  repair  injury,  it  produces  vice  ; seeking  to 
cure  the  evils  of  the  state,  it  causes  sin  in  the  soul.  The 
damage  it  inflicts  upon  the  moral  life  of  a nation  is  the 
measure  of  its  offense  against  the  moral  laws  of  God. 

As  it  is  impossible  for  an  individual  to  consent  to  Y 
combat  without  suffering  deterioration  throughout  the 
entire  range  of  his  inner  being,  so  necessity  decrees 
that  the  nation  which  substitutes  force  for  reason,  and 
violence  for  moral  suasion,  shall  become  irrational  and 
immoral  to  an  extent  that  can  be  comprehended  only 
by  those  who  have  passed  through  a war  period  without 

4i 


42 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


sharing  the  war  passion.  Actions  universally  repro- 
bated, when  performed  by  private  persons  in  times  of 
peace,  are  transformed  into  national  duties  and  acts  of 
high  patriotism  when  performed  collectively  after  a 
declaration  of  hostilities.  The  fatal  challenge  at  once 
turns  honest  men  into  knaves,  peaceable  men  into  cut- 
throats, and  industrial  peoples  into  hordes  of  brigands, 
y The  first  shot  annihilates  moral  sense,  not  merely  in  the 
combatant  on  the  field  but  in  the  citizen  at  home.  Con- 
science is  dismissed.  The  ethical  factor  is  deliberately 
ruled  out.  The  Ten  Commandments  are  supplanted  by 
the  rules  of  the  game.  Statesmen,  journalists,  preachers, 
suspend  their  normal  functions  till  the  soldier  has  com- 
pleted his,  and  ostentatiously  refuse  to  apply  either 
the  principles  of  statecraft  or  the  precepts  of  religion 
to  the  case  until  the  appeal  to  the  brute  has  been 
decided.  A declaration  of  war  is  the  abrogation  of 
sj  morality,  — a license  to  kill,  lie,  covet,  steal,  and  per- 
form every  sin  which,  up  to  the  moment  of  the  declara- 
tion, had  been  forbidden.  The  Decalogue  is  suspended. 
It  is  lawful  to  break  all  the  commandments.  Thou 
shalt  not  kill  ? — but  war  has  no  other  end  than  to  kill. 
Thou  shalt  not  steal?  — but  the  soldier  may  loot,  and 
his  country  annex  the  conquered  territory.  The  Sab- 
bath shall  be  kept  holy?  — but  the  killing  of  enemies 
is  not  unholy  on  the  holy  day,  and  it  becomes  holy  to 
march  to  divine  worship  to  the  blare  of  the  trumpet 
and  the  skirl  of  the  bagpipe,  amid  throngs  of  excited 
' men  and  women.  Everything  goes.  Nothing  is  left  ; 
neither  God  nor  Sabbath,  neither  ethics  nor  religion. 
The  military  Moloch  devours,  not  our  children  only, 


TO  THE  NATION 


43 


but  our  moral  faculties,  our  sense  of  righteousness,'  our 
feeling  of  brotherhood,  our  religious  vows.  War  is  the 
sum  of  all  villainies,  and  includes  a corruption  of  moral 
sense  that  is  the  greatest  of  all  its  villainies.  War 
kills  ; but  the  murderous  spirit  it  creates  is  crueler 
than  any  particular  act  of  murder.  War  lies  ; but  the 
lying  spirit  it  engenders  is  baser  than  any  specific 
falsehood.  War  steals  ; but  the  pirate  spirit  it  fosters 
is  meaner  than  any  single  theft.  War  lusts  ; but  the 
general  debauchment  of  virtue  is  fouler  than  any  one 
rape  or  violation.  The  glory  of  war  is  one  thing  ; let  it 
be  put  into  the  scale,  and  let  the  gain  of  war  be  put  in 
with  it.  Then  into  the  opposite  scale  let  the  moral 
damage  of  war  be  cast.  Let  the  balance  be  true.  Its 
destructive  effect  upon  the  moral  character  of  the 
nation  that  wages  it  is  war’s  final  condemnation. 

Since  all  experience  goes  to  show  that  no  considera- 
tion of  the  sufferings  involved  in  war  will  be  powerful 
enough  to  dissuade  nations  from  engaging  in  it,  the 
appeal  must  now  be  made  from  utility  to  ethics,  from 
the  soldier  to  the  citizen,  from  the  body  to  the  soul ; 
and  the  accent  of  condemnation  must  be  transferred 
from  the  physical  destruction  of  the  battlefield  to  the 
moral  damnation  of  the  home  land.  It  is  the  people 
who  remain  at  home  — the  politician  and  the  taxpayer — 
that  truly  make  the  war,  employing  the  soldier  merely 
as  their  hired  tool ; and  it  is  amongst  them,  the  ap- 
plauders  of  war,  that  we  must  look  to  find  its  results 
displayed  in  their  most  horrid  and  disgusting  shapes. 
It  is  in  them  that  the  savage  beast  rouses  up  with  a 
ferocity  not  less  than  in  the  fighters  on  the  field,  with 


44 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


a brutality  of  speech  and  appetite  corresponding  to  the 
brutality  of  the  fighter’s  deed,  but  without  the  re- 
demptive element  of  danger  and  the  touch  of  imagina- 
tive grandeur  which  attend  him.  Without  being  able 
to  plead  any  of  his  excuses  these  noncombatants 
exhibit  a savagery  at  least  equal  to  that  of  the  actual 
combatant,  and  glory  in  his  bloody  work  without  ex- 
periencing any  of  his  dangers  or  the  sobering  effect  of 
his  responsibilities.  It  is  not  difficult  to  understand 
that  a man  who,  on  the  field  of  strife,  confronts  the 
same  furies  in  his  foe  is  able  to  mask  as  heroic  valor 
the  foul  passions  which  alone  make  his  trade  possible, 
and  to  excuse  the  crudest  threats  under  the  plea  of 
necessity ; but  what  semblance  of  nobleness  or  neces- 
sity can  they  wear  when  vented  by  those  who  merely 
sit  at  home  and  pay  taxes  ? If  we  strip  any  scene  of 
battle  of  all  the  excitements,  exigencies,  excuses  fairly 
pleaded  by  those  who  must  either  kill  or  be  killed,  we 
expose  quite  naked,  if  yet  unashamed,  that  love  of  fight, 
thirst  for  revenge,  savage  joy  in  an  enemy’s  wounds 
and  death,  infernal  lapse  into  treachery  and  barbarity 
which  emerge  just  as  inevitably  amongst  the  noncom- 
batants. Even  if  the  foe  resemble  nothing  so  much  as 
Emerson’s  “embattled  farmers,”  an  imperial  poet1  will 
nevertheless  yell  that 

— speech  and  tongue 
, Lack  utterance  now  for  loathing 

To  scourge  these  dogs,  agape  with  jaws  afoam, 

Down  out  of  life, 

and  will  insult  their  suffering  women  and  children  as 
“ dams  and  cubs.”  “ The  poorest  being  that  crawls  on. 


TO  THE  NATION 


45 


earth,”  says  Edmund  Burke,  in  his  famous  letter  on 
the  American  War,  “ contending  to  save  itself  from  / 
injustice,  is  an  object  respectable  in  the  eyes  of  God 
and  man.  But  I cannot  conceive  any  existence  under 
heaven  (which  in  the  depths  of  its  wisdom  tolerates  all 
sorts  of  things)  that  is  more  truly  odious  and  disgust- 
ing than  an  impotent,  helpless  creature,  without  civil 
wisdom  or  military  skill,  bloated  with  pride  and  arro- 
gance, calling  for  battles  which  he  is  not  to  fight,  and  / 
contending  for  a violent  dominion  which  he  can  never 
exercise.”  It  is  here  that  the  peculiar  sin  and  offense 
of  war  stand  revealed.  The  murderous  raptures  of  the 
non-fighters  publish  its  infamy  more  than  the  murderous 
strokes  of  the  fighters.  That  which  breaks  the  heart 
of  the  peace  angel  is  not  so  much  the  corporal  un- 
doing of  the  stricken  field  as  the  brutality  of  the  man 
in  the  street,  the  cowardly  swagger  of  the  music  hall, 
the  prostitution  of  the  pulpit  to  a heathen  deity,  the 
blood  lust  fostered  by  theaters,  inculcated  in  schools, 
preached  in  churches,  propagated  by  our  women,  pro- 
fessed by  our  children,  practised  by  all.  It  is  not  the 
infernal  lyddite  hurling  its  baleful  vapors  to  the  sky, 
thence  spreading  abroad  over  the  fields  till  vegetation 
droops  and  every  living  thing  sickens  and  dies,  but  the 
more  infernal  exhalations  that  come  reeking  up  from! 
the  hell  heart  of  the  home  land  till  the  whole  atmos- 
phere is  thick  with  hate  and  murder  ; it  is  not  the 
camp,  the  sentry  on  his  rounds,  the  bugle  note,  the 
marshaling  of  embattled  hosts,  but  the  club,  the  ex- 
change, the  school,  the  church,  the  pedagogue  pouring 
hate  into  the  helpless  ear  of  innocent  childhood,  the 


46 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


pulpiteer  preaching  hate  where  he  was  vowed  to  preach 
love,  the  journalist  with  his  yellow  sheet  fanning  the 
flame  of  hate,  the  politician  piling  fuel  on  the  fires  of 
hate,  the  stockjobber  telegraphing  hate  for  the  sake 
of  percentages,  the  mob  roaring,  rabid,  riotous  ; it  is 
not  the  piled  corpses  of  the  foughten  field,  quiet  enough 
at  last,  and  harmless,  but  the  devils  of  hate  and  murder, 
of  cruelty  and  revenge,  of  falsehood  and  covetousness, 
ceaselessly  raging,  devouring,  howling,  all  in  the  burn- 
ing hell  of  adiseased  and  demented  “patriotism”:  these 
are  the  repulsive  forms  in  which  the  war  spirit  finally 
clothes  himself,  to  which  we  point  as  his  unconditional 
damnation.  It  is  these  that  lay  the  last,  heaviest, 
sharpest,  bloodiest  plait  of  thorns  on  the  brow  of  the 
Prince  of  Peace.  Here  is  the  new  ground  of  the  cru- 
sade against  war,  the  new  basis  of  the  apology  for 
peace.  The  peace  advocate  now  changes  his  front. 
Whereas  hitherto  it  was  on  the  field  of  battle  that  the 
reformer  sought  his  arguments,  he  now  finds  them  at 
home,  in  society  and  the  church;  in  the  degeneracy  of 
those  who,  without  striking,  curse;  without  fighting, 
hate  ; without  danger,  threaten ; without  experiencing 
any  of  its  immediate  provocations  or  undergoing  any 
of  its  perils,  nevertheless  delight  in  every  base  and  bru- 
tal passion  proper  to  war.  In  short,  the  enemy  is  not 
now  war,  so  much  as  the  war  spirit. 

War  inflicts  moral  damage  upon  a nation  by  diffusing 
the  foulest  and  most  malignant  passions  throughout  its 
entire  population.  With  the  first  blast  of  the  bugle 
away  goes  even  the  white  cloak  of  religion,  and  out 
starts  the  pagan  as  unregenerate  and  unredeemed  as  if 


TO  THE  NATION 


47 


no  Christ  had  ever  spoken  a beatitude  of  mercy  or 
given  his  life  to  emphasize  it.  The  thing  called  Chris- 
tianity stands  revealed  as  a very  antichrist,  wearing, 
indeed,  the  sacred  name  on  its  forehead,  but  bearing  in 
its  bosom  the  heart  of  Cain.  The  antichristian  quickly 
descends  into  the  antihuman;  and  the  warrior  nation, 
having  discarded  religion,  proceeds  next  to  throw  over- 
board whatever  humanity  it  may  have  brought  up  with 
it  from  the  pagan  ages.  The  sword  that  smites  the 
enemy  abroad  also  peels  the  veneer  off  the  citizen  at 
home,  and  lays  the  primeval  savage  bare.  The  hired 
homicide  is  applauded  by  the  crowd  as  the  finest 
type  of  humanity,  and  the  sorning  priest  hastens  to 
sanctify  slaughter  as  the  holiest  of  human  duties.  A 
venal  journalism  dips  its  pen  in  blood,  and  gorges  the 
populace  with  gore  till  the  very  milk  of  human  kind- 
ness runs  red.  The  yellow  pressman,  eager  to  float 
himself  to  the  top  of  his  profession  on  the  red  tide, 
ceases  not  to  invoke  the  fell  monsters  of  revenge  and 
massacre,  till  the  people,  grown  familiar  with  their 
faces,  “first  endure,  then  pity,  then  embrace.”  The 
capitalistic  monger  of  various  jingo  journals  will  chant 
inspiring  ditties  to  his  readers  in  praise  of  “the  baynit, 
the  ruddy,  bloody  baynit.”  2 Against  all  this,  no  doubt, 
— a red  press,  a prostitute  pulpit,  a debauched  popu- 
lace,— some  stand  could  be  made  by  the  apostolic 
spirit.  But  the  ultimately  appalling  thing  is  the  lapse 
of  persons  in  other  respects  humane  and  good,  who 
will  be  found  delivering  themselves  of  sentiments  that 
are  entirely  devilish,  and  of  opinions  that  would  grace 
the  lips  only  of  a thug,  so  that,  if  the  listener  could 


48 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


close  his  eyes  to  the  soft  surroundings  of  the  drawing- 
room or  the  saloon  carriage,  he  could  easily  imagine 
himself  the  unhappy  auditor  of  a Zulu  war  council. 
Against  confessed  fiends  and  undressed  devils  the 
peace  angel  could  make  some  stand;  but  what  strikes 
him  dumb  and  desperate  is  the  simple  unconsciousness 
of  those  excellent  people  who  congregate  in  clubs  and 
churches  to  the  part  they  are  playing  and  the  character 
they  are  revealing  ; their  inability  to  realize  that,  for 
all  their  unaffected  goodness,  their  gentle  accents,  and 
their  virtuous  ways,  they  are  at  heart  pitiless  homicides. 
Their  real  Bible  becomes  the  religious  organ  which  can 
write,  “ Until  now  blood  has  been  running  in  tiny 
rivulets  — the  British  army  in  the  two  republics  must 
exterminate  the  Boer  vermin,  and  soak  the  soil  with 
their  blood,  that  the  grass  may  grow  the  quicker.”3 
Against  moral  stupidity  and  callousness  like  this  the 
Prince  of  Peace  himself  wars  in  vain. 

This  appalling  indifference  to  human  life  deepens, 
by  necessity,  into  a positive  inclination  towards  crimes 
of  violence.  If  a government,  upon  word  given,  may 
slay  men  wholesale)  why  should  we  be  so  distressed  by 
accidental  deaths,  or  so  averse  to  taking  life  in  single 
cases  ? We  may  kill  whole  nations  and  call  it  patriot- 
ism ; but  when  the  corner  boy  kills  the  gamin,  call  it 
murder  and  hang  him.  We  carry  this  indifference  to 
life  so  far  as  to  come,  at  length,  to  regard  the  slaughter 
of  our  own  countrymen  with  unconcern.  “Nothing  is 
changed,”  says  the  Pecksniffian  journalist,  “there  are 
only  so  many  Englishmen  the  less”;4  while  the  pa- 
triotic war  correspondent  “ cares  not  if  we  lose  five 


TO  THE  NATION 


49 


thousand  men  killed  and  wounded  in  forcing  the  pas- 
sage.” 6 “ Right!”  echoes  the  gilded  aristocrat.  “Some 
people  seem  to  think  that  the  death  of  a certain  number 
of  soldiers  on  the  field  of  battle  is  a deplorable  thing,” 
but  he  does  not  believe  “the  mass  of  Englishmen  hold 
that  opinion.”6  “ More  than  that,”  chimes  in  the  mili- 
tary exploiter,  “ this  nation  . . . ought  to  be  satisfied 
to  give  them  a few  lives,”  even  for  target  practice  at 
home  ; “ if  they  killed  a man  every  ten  years  it  was  a 
thing  that  ought  to  be  allowed  to  occur ; ...  it  could 
easily  be  done  by  insurance  or  otherwise,  but  they 
ought  not  to  be  prevented  from  learning  to  shoot,  what- 
ever it  cost.”  7 There  are  a great  many  mouths  to  feed 
at  home;  laborers  are  competing  keenly  for  the  same 
work,  and  merchants  for  the  same  market.  Is  it  not  a 
capital  thing  to  send  the  superfluous  people  at  home 
to  destroy  the  undesirable  people  abroad  ? And  since, 
by  our  persistent  neglect,  we  have  turned  the  surplus 
laborer  into  a menace  and  a danger,  what  could  be 
better  than  that,  while  engaged  in  killing  off  our  foes, 
he  should  himself  be  killed  off  ? It  is  a beautiful 
arrangement  of  supply  and  demand!  It  is  quite  a 
providence!  Let  us  be  thankful!  It  is  the  best  of  all 
possible  worlds! 

So  far  from  fostering  chivalry  and  the  generous  senti- 
ments, as  has  been  claimed,  war  appears  to  destroy  them 
completely,  and  to  substitute  for  them  those  qualities 
which  characterize  the  bully  and  the  braggart.  Before 
the  cruel  face  of  the  war  god  magnanimity  dies.  If  there 
is  anything  in  the  past  history  of  a nation  that  leans  to 


50 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


the  side  of  the  magnanimous,  it  will  be  denounced  as 
a weakness  and  a blunder,  and  politicians  will  weary 
themselves  in  taking  precautions  that  the  people  shall 
never  again  suffer  from  a flow  of  generosity  to  the  heart. 
They  become  a nation  of  churls.  Take,  for  an  example, 
their  attitude  towards  the  leader  of  the  hostile  people. 
He  may,  in  the  estimate  of  an  unprejudiced  world,  be 
as  magnanimous  as  his  assailants  are  mean,  may  have 
spared  the  lives  of  those  who  plotted  against  his  country, 
and  tried  every  possible  way  of  honorable  peace,  but  it 
will  avail  him  nothing.  He  may  resemble  one  of  the 
antique  heroes,  but  the  nation  that  fights  him  will  not  see 
it.  Impartial  judgment  may  put  him  beside  the  greatest 
patriots  of  the  past,  but  his  greatness  cannot  save  him 
from  the  ridicule  and  contempt  of  those  who  war  against 
him,  whose  audiences  will  receive  his  name  with  howls, 
whose  processions  will  burn  him  in  effigy,  and  whose 
poltroon  press  will  seize  on  every  personal  defect  or 
eccentricity,  exaggerating,  distorting,  denouncing,  till 
it  succeeds  in  turning  the  vulgar  laugh  against  him,  or 
inflaming  the  popular  mind  with  resentment.  Politicians 
at  play,  unbending  themselves  amid  the  jocularities  of 
a garden  party,  will  take  pop-shots  at  his  effigy  with 
the  Morris  tube.8  The  last  thing  he  must  expect  is 
magnanimity.  Or,  for  another  instance,  see  the  manner 
in  which  a victorious  nation  regards  the  sufferings  of 
its  foe.  So  far  from  compelling  admiration  or  begetting 
compassion  the  sufferings  of  the  brave  appear  to  fire 
the  victor  with  a fiendish  pleasure.  He  owns  to  “feel- 
ing a rare  satisfaction,  a warm  glow  at  the  heart,  when 
he  sees  the  smoke  of  their  homesteads  ascending  to 


TO  THE  NATION 


51 


heaven  ; they  are  but  human  vermin  ; a beast  of  a rebel 
is  getting  his  deserts.”9  No  matter  how  numerous  his 
losses,  how  deep  his  anguish,  how  passionate  his  protest, 
how  pathetic  his  appeal,  the  uppermost,  almost  the 
sole  sentiment  in  the  breast  of  the  conquering  people 
will  be  that  expressed  in  the  phrase,  “Serves  him  right.” 
With  joy  they  read  that  “farm-burning  goes  merrily 
on,  and  our  course  through  the  country  is  marked  as  in 
prehistoric  ages  by  pillars  of  smoke  by  day  and  fire  by 
night.  ...  I do  not  gather  that  any  special  reason 
or  cause  is  alleged  against  the  farms  burnt  ; ...  to 
save  trouble  we  burn  the  lot  without  enquiry  ; . . . only 
the  women  are  left.” 10  Their  savagery  deepens  to 
the  solemnity  of  a pagan  sacrifice  as  they  learn  that  the 
enemy  “ have  now  to  watch  a slow,  implacable,  method- 
ical devastation  of  their  country,  tract  by  tract.  Day  by 
day  they  fight,  and  one  by  one  they  fall.  Comrades  and 
friends  drop  at  each  other’s  side  ; sons  drop  by  fathers’, 
brothers  by  brothers’.  The  smoke  rises  in  the  valley, 
and  the  home  is  blotted  out.  It  is  a torture  long  and 
slow,  the  agony  and  bloody  sweat.”  11  What  happiness 
in  the  picture  of  the  conquering  army  coming  down 
“ burning  farms  and  taking  all  the  cattle,  . . . leaving 
women  and  children  homeless,  to  die  of  hunger”12  — 
hunger  to  escape  which  “the  women  have  to  till  the 
ground,  whilst  the  boys  and  girls  are  sometimes  in- 
spanned  eight  or  ten  together,  to  draw  a small  plough, 
in  order  to  get  some  mealies  sown.”  13  It  is  a cordial  to 
the  patriot  heart  to  know  that  “ at  least  thirty  thou- 
sand houses  on  the  farms  have  been  burnt,  or  destroyed. 

. . . Our  dwellings  with  the  furniture  have  been  burnt 


52 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


or  demolished,  our  orchards  cut  down,  all  agricultural 
implements  broken,  mills  destroyed,  every  living  animal 
taken  away  or  killed  — nothing,  alas!  remains.  The 
land  is  a desert  !”14  No  punishment  will  appear  too 
great  for  the  crime  of  resisting  the  dictate  of  whatever 
minister  may  happen  to  be  the  mouthpiece  of  their 
pride.  If  he  cannot  be  entirely  proud  of  sending  to 
make  war  on  women  and  children  the  biggest  army 
that  ever  crossed  the  sea,  the  citizen  of  a country  that 
can  do  no  wrong  — when  he  reads  of  girls  driven  to 
escape  hunger  by  the  solitary  road  of  prostitution,15 
of  women  taken  from  their  burnt  homes  twelve  hours 
after  giving  birth  to  twin  children,  placed  in  wagons 
and  carried  off  by  troops,  to  die  with  their  children  a 
few  hours  later,16  of  deaths  of  women  and  children  so 
numerous  that  there  is  no  more  wood  for  coffins  [“  The 
graves  were  three  and  a half  feet  deep  only ; we  saw  little 
children  engaged  in  filling  them  in  ”],17  or  that  thirteen 
thousand  children  have  thus  miserably  perished  18  — 
will  sullenly  ejaculate,  “ Let  their  men  give  in,  then  ! ” 
or  piously  opine,  with  a most  Christian  dean,19  that  the 
conduct  of  the  war  “ is  an  overflowing  stream  which  we 
may  hope  will  water  the  hearts  of  [the  enemy].” 

The  ruthlessness  of  the  reader  of  battles  probably 
often  exceeds  that  of  the  fighter  of  them  ; nor  can  the 
story  of  brave  heads  low  on  the  ground  or  loving  hearts 
broken  in  the  home  shake  his  fell  purpose.  The  heart 
that  beats  behind  the  newspaper  is  not  less  hard  than 
that  which  animates  the  sword  ; and  as,  folded  in  the 
soft  security  of  his  easy-chair,  the  lounger  cons  the 
daily  tale  of  blood,  he  gloats  over  defeat,  delights 


TO  THE  NATION 


53 


in  wounds,  glories  in  deaths,  applauds  revenge,  and  con- 
dones cruelty  with  as  few  “ compunctious  visitings  of 
nature”  as  any  soldier  of  them  all.  .The  thought  of 
the  writhing  wounded  or  the  staring  dead  brings  forth 
no  prayer  for  mercy  or  for  pity ; the  record  of  farms 
trampled  into  mire,  steadings  burnt  to  the  ground,  cities 
sacked,  brave  men  hunted  like  partridges  upon  the 
mountain,  swells  the  breast  and  sends  lumps  of  exulta- 
tion up  into  the  throat,  till  the  readers  rush  out  into  the 
night  to  relieve  themselves  with  wild  shouts  of  revelry. 
“And,  to  set  forth,”  says  Swift,  “the  valor  of  my  own 
dear  countrymen,  I assured  him  that  I had  seen  them 
blow  up  a hundred  enemies  at  once  in  a siege,  and  as 
many  in  a ship  ; and  beheld  the  dead  bodies  come  down 
in  pieces  from  the  clouds  to  the  great  diversion  of  the 
spectators.”  It  is  thus  that  war  hardens  the  heart  of  1 
him  that  consents  to  it,  and  robs  him  of  sorrow  for  the 
slain,  reverence  for  the  weak,  generosity  for  the  defeated, 
chivalry  for  the  brave.  War  is  not  so  horrible  in  that  it 
drains  the  dearest  veins  of  the  foe,  but  in  that  it  drains 
our  own  hearts  of  the  yet  more  precious  elements  of  pity, 
mercy,  generosity,  which  are  the  lifeblood  of  the  soul.20 

This  descent  into  the  dastard  touches  bottom  with 
that  wholesale  slandering  of  the  foe  which  appears  to 
be  the  inevitable  concomitant  of  war,  and  of  which  Mr. 
Herbert  Spencer  has  given  instances,  as  well  as  an 
explanation,  in  his  chapter  on  the  “ Bias  of  Patriotism.” 
But  instances  crowd  upon  the  attention  in  time  of 
national  collision.  A celebrated  imperialistic  poet  21  — 
to  take  but  one  — confesses  that  he  attended  a magic- 
lantern  entertainment  given  to  Indians  at  a time  when 


54 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


India  was  supposed  to  be  menaced  by  Russia,  and  that 
when  any  beast  more  uncouth  and  terrifying  than  usual 
ambled  across  the  screen,  it  was,  on  his  suggestion, 
solemnly  introduced  as  a true  and  authentic  likeness  of 
those  diabolical  Russians  and  accompanied  by  the  most 
horrible  stories  that  could  be  concocted.  The  joke  is 
bad,  but  the  morals  are  worse,  — and  it  is  a mild  instance 
of  how  “patriotism”  keeps  the  Ninth  Commandment. 
Heathendom  expressly  declared  that  no  enemy  was  to 
have  the  truth  spoken  of  or  to  him,  which  was  perfectly 
consistent ; and  since  war  cancels  the  Decalogue  and 
abrogates  Christianity,  a certain  kind  of  consistency 
can  be  pleaded  also  by  Christendom.  The  hostilities 
which  break  every  tie  of  humanity  annul  also  every  law 
of  charity.  The  justification  to  kill  involves  also  the 
liberty  to  lie.  Every  war  may  be  said  to  involve  two 
campaigns, — a campaign  of  slaughter  abroad  and  a r 
campaign  of  calumny  at  home,  the  second  of  which  is 
not  less  cruel  than  the  first,  and  much  more  disgusting. 
As  the  fighters  breathe  out  threatenings  and  slaughter, 
so  the  writers  vomit  rivers  of  lies  like  serpents’  slime ; 
the  first  shoot  bullets,  the  second  fling  mud  ; those 
take  life,  these  destroy  reputation.  Such  are  the  two 
complementary  forces  without  which  no  long-sustained 
contest  would  be  possible.  The  broom  that  blackens 
the  foe  is  the  indispensable  auxiliary  of  the  bayonet 
that  stabs  him  ; the  journalistic  ink  slinger  is  as  neces- 
sary as  the  scout ; the  platform  libeler  as  important  as 
the  sentry;  the  parliamentary  mud  lark  as  essential  as 
the  general  on  the  field  ; the  pulpit  bearer  of  false  wit- 
ness not  less  needful  than  the  chaplain  of  the  regiment ; 


TO  THE  NATION 


55 


for  without  all  these  secondary  and  auxiliary  forces  at 
home  the  primary  forces  of  destruction  abroad  would 
never  be  able  to  complete  the  task  of  putting  a nation 
to  death.  The  home  auxiliaries  in  press  and  pulpit,  in 
club  and  school,  in  congress  and  parliament,  supply  the 
motive  power,  the  driving  force  of  hate,  the  stimulus  of 
revenge,  the  incentive  of  pride ; the  forces  in  the  field 
are  the  mere  executive  of  their  passions.  But  it  is  cer- 
tain that  no  army  would  be  permitted  to  put  a nation  to 
physical  death  unless  the  home  auxiliaries  had  first 
condemned  it  to  moral  death.  A nation’s  character 
must  be  destroyed  before  it  is  possible  to  destroy  its 
citizens,  for  no  people  would  consent  to  kill  those  whom 
it  had  not  first  pronounced  unfit  to  live.  T heretrigmj)f 
a war  has  to  be  justified  to  the  people  who  wage  it,  and/' 
their  spirit  kept  up  to  fighting  pitch  through  all  the 
months  or  years  of  its  continuance ; and  there  is  no 
better  way  of  doing  both  than  to  represent  the  enemy 
as  savages,  monsters,  vermin  (“  like  to  the  unclean 
race  of  monkeys,”  as  an  eminent  Russian  representative 
of  Greek  Christianity  recently  described  the  Japanese), 
to  exterminate  whom  is  to  perform  a duty  to  humanity. 
And  to  achieve  this  is  not  so  difficult  as  might  ap- 
pear to  the  unprejudiced  mind.  It  is  necessary  only  to 
ignore  the  testimonies  of  men  high  in  the  offices  of 
peace  and  war,  — such  testimonies  as  this:  “I  have 
lived  among  many  nations  and  in  many  countries,  and 
I may  with  all  truth  say  this,  — I know  no  people  richer 
in  public  and  in  private  virtues  ” ; 22  or  this  : “ The  deep- 
est impression  has  been  made  on  me  by  these  conversa- 
tions, and  by  the  manly  bearing  and  the  straightforward, 


56 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


outspoken  way  in  which  we  were  met”; 23  or  this  : “So 
they  were  not  cruel,  these  enemies  ! This  was  a great 
surprise  to  me,  for  I had  read  much  of  the  literature  of 
this  land  of  lies  ” ; 24  or  this : “ They  are  a deeply  religious 
people.”  25  It  is  necessary  merely  to  accuse  the  foe,  how- 
ever noble,  of  every  crime  which  might  be  supposed  to 
unfit  a creature  for  existence,  — such  as  arson,  murder, 
rape,  assassination  ; to  get  the  papers  to  retail  those 
manufactured  atrocities  often  enough  — and  especially 
whenever  the  public  mind  appears  to  be  softening;  to 
get  the  pulpits  to  dilate  on  those  imaginary  crimes  with 
a fine  moral  heat ; to  get  ignorant  dignitaries  of  the 
church  to  misrepresent  the  enemy  as  having  “a  coarser 
sense  of  the  dignity  of  man,”  26  or  that  “ their  religion  is 
a strange  Calvinistic  superstition  that  has  taught  them 
that  lying  and  trickery  should  form  the  basis  of  charac- 
ter”; 27  and  the  result  of  these  home  maneuvers  will 
certainly  be  to  keep  the  temper  of  the  home  land  so 
like  a hell  that  the  executive  army  abroad  will  have  no 
choice  but  to  do  its  work  like  a devil.  The  general  in 
command  may  protest  against  it,  paying  the  tribute  of 
truth  to  the  enemy  as  “ a brave  and  high-spirited  people,” 
and  saying,  “ I hate  this  atrocity-manufacturing  and  its 
effects  on  the  men,  tending  to  make  them  either  cow- 
ards or  butchers’  ;28  but  there  are  at  home  a number  of 
excellent  and  godly  people  whose  sentiments  require 
some  kind  of  salve  or  opiate  before  they  will  consent 
to  prolong  a war  of  extermination  to  which,  on  other 
grounds,  they  are  not  averse  ; and  these  Munchausen 
tales  give  them  the  very  pretext  the  thing  they  call 
conscience  craves.  Those  who  have  faced  the  enemy 


TO  THE  NATION 


57 


on  the  field  may  write  indignantly  of  the  attempt  to 
paint  an  opposing  general  as  brutal  and  dishonorable. 
“ Those  who,  like  myself,  have  fought  against  him,  and 
frequently  met  men  who  have  been  prisoners  under 
him,  look,  I believe,  with  shame  and  indignation  on  the 
attempts  made  to  blacken  the  character  of  a man  who 
throughout  the  war  has  held  a reputation  with  our 
troops  in  the  field  of  being  not  only  a gallant  soldier 
but  a humane  and  honorable  gentleman;”29  but  the 
“patriot”  scandal  monger  will  keep  his  sordid  way. 
There  is  nothing  new  about  the  method.  It  is  as  old 
as  hypocrisy.  “There  used  to  be  tales  told  long  ago,” 
writes  Mr.  H.  Fielding  in  that  exquisite  flower  of  travel 
literature,  The  Soul  of  a People , “of  King  Thibaw,  how 
he  was  a drunkard,  and  had  orgies  in  the  palace.  We 
know  now  that  there  was  not  a word  of  truth  in  those 
reports.  . . . How  the  reports  ever  arose  I could  never 
ascertain  — certainly  not  from  Burman  sources.  . . . 
told  me  that  we  English  had  invented  them,  . . . not 
one  word  of  truth  in  the  English  reports  that  the  king 
drank,  ...  a nation  of  total  abstainers.”  The  com- 
plaint lodged  by  Benjamin  Franklin  in  the  name  of  the 
American  colonists  still  goes  to  the  root  of  the  matter; 
the  object  is  still  to  render  the  enemy  odious  and  con- 
temptible, so  as  to  prevent  all  concern  for  him  in  the 
friends  of  liberty:  “ so  much  and  so  long  persecuted  with 
vehement  and  malicious  abuse,  . . . rendering  us  odious 
as  well  as  contemptible,  to  prevent  all  concern  for  us  in 
the  friends  of  liberty  here,  when  the  project  of  oppress- 
ing us  further  and  depriving  us  of  our  rights  by  various 
violent  measures  should  be  carried  into  execution.” 


58 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


It  is  not  enough,  however,  to  present  the  foe  in  a 
character  entirely  hateful ; the  nation  he  dares  to 
resist  must,  by  a necessity  both  artistic  and  moral,  be 
presented  as  entirely  noble  and  just.  The  feeling  in 
the  human  mind  for  completeness,  the  need  of  balance 
and  contrast,  causes  the  national  self  to  be  exalted  and 
glorified  in  proportion  as  the  enemy  is  trodden  down 
and  maligned.  That  egotism  which  forever  thwarts 
the  aspiration  of  Robert  Burns,  “ to  see  ourselves  as 
others  see  us,”  is  more  hateful  in  the  nation  even  than 
in  the  individual ; and  some  striking  instances  of  it  are 
given  in  Spencer’s  Study  of  Sociology  (pp.  208-209). 
“ Every  one  old  enough  remembers  the  reprobation 
vented  here  when  the  French  in  Algiers  dealt  so 
cruelly  with  Arabs  who  refused  to  submit,  — light- 
ing fires  at  the  mouths  of  caves  in  which  they  had 
taken  refuge  ; but  we  do  not  see  a like  barbarity  in 
deeds  of  our  own  in  India,  — such  as  the  executing  a 
group  of  rebel  sepoys  by  fusillade  and  then  setting 
fire  to  the  heap  of  them  because  they  were  not  all 
dead,  — or  in  the  wholesale  shootings  and  burnings 
of  houses  after  the  suppression  of  the  Jamaica  insur- 
rection. Listen  to  what  is  said  about  such  deeds  in 
our  own  colonies,  and  you  will  find  that  habitually 
they  are  held  to  have  been  justified  by  the  necessi- 
ties of  the  case.  Listen  to  what  is  said  about  such 
deeds  when  other  nations  are  guilty  of  them,  and 
you  find  the  same  persons  indignantly  declare  that 
no  alleged  necessities  could  form  a justification.  Nay, 
the  bias  produces  perversions  of  judgment  even  more 
extreme.  Feelings  and  deeds  we  laud  as  virtuous 


TO  THE  NATION 


59 


when  they  are  not  in  antagonism  with  our  own  inter- 
ests and  power,  we  think  vicious  feelings  and  deeds 
when  our  own  interests  and  power  are  endangered  by 
them.  Equally  in  the  mythical  story  of  Tell  and  in 
any  account  not  mythical,  we  read  with  glowing  admi- 
ration of  the  successful  rising  of  an  oppressed  race ; 
but  admiration  is  changed  into  indignation  if  the  race 
is  one  held  down  by  ourselves.”  The  same  breath  that 
libels  the  foe  returns  to  inflate  the  libeler ; the  meas- 
ure of  scorn  is  also  the  measure  of  conceit ; puff  fol- 
lows slander  till  every  neutral  person  pronounces  the 
national  mood  insufferable.  The  same  columns  which 
systematically  cheapen  the  enemy  set  forth  the  magnifi- 
cent virtues  of  the  dominant  race,  which  degenerates 
into  a nation  of  egotists  never  weary  of  extolling  its 
own  valor  and  setting  forth  its  marvelous  greatness. 
Many  causes  have  combined  to  rob  the  most  pro- 
gressive modern  peoples  of  their  ancient  stolidity,  to 
make  them  excitable,  even  hysterical,  entirely  unable 
to  sustain  their  ancient  reputations  under  the  fevers, 
scares,  panics,  catastrophes,  and  immense  vicissitudes 
of  modern  warfare.  Hence  if  one  of  them  succeeds 
in  transporting  a hundred  thousand  men  across  the 
sea,  it  is  lost  in  admiration  of  its  own  feat,  and  sum- 
mons the  world  to  witness  the  unexhausted  maritime 
resources  of  the  greatest  sea  power  that  ever  conde- 
scended to  govern  it.  If  its  troops  are  victorious  over 
a small  body  of  untrained  fighters,  it  represents  the 
affair  as  a triumph  of  heroism  and  military  skill ; and 
men  sitting  at  home  in  clubs  and  pothouses,  ringed  by 
the  sea  and  lined  round  by  ironclads,  warm  into  ecstasy 


6o 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


as  if  the  trumpery  success  were  all  their  own.  Were 
their  soldiers  face  to  face  with  the  combined  armies  of 
the  world,  no  stronger  terms  could  be  invented  to 
express  their  prodigious  and  world-shaking  prowess. 
They  strike  the  stars  with  their  sublime  heads.  The 
right  hand  shakes  the  left  in  passionate  congratulation. 
Exclamation  chokes  into  incoherency  ; no  expletives 
are  left,  no  adjectives  for  future  use  ; the  vocabulary 
of  praise  is  exhausted.  Printers  use  up  their  entire 
stock  of  exclamation  marks,  exhaust  every  resource  of 
leading,  double  leading,  scare  heads,  flaring  posters, 
and  strain  every  nerve  to  produce  by  machinery  a 
glory  which  was  never  produced  by  arms.  Never 
were  such  men  ; never  such  feats  of  arms  ! Every 
private  is  a Leonidas  ; every  scuffle  a Waterloo  ! All 
the  world  wonders  ! The  war  was  worth  waging  if 
only  to  show  that  the  race  had  lost  none  of  its  pris- 
tine ferocity  ! It  is  good  to  know  that  the  serpent  is 
as  cunning  and  the  bulldog  as  savage  as  before  ! 

But  even  humiliation  on  the  field  does  not  suffice 
to  mortify  the  insane  pride  of  a nation  that  has  been 
used  to  conquer ; for  its  spokesmen  find  new  and  in- 
genious ways  of  turning  defeat  into  food  for  vanity. 
No  troops  except  those  of  that  particular  nation  could 
have  marched  such  marches,  performed  such  maneu- 
vers, retreated  so  adroitly,  or  borne  reverse  with  such 
sublime  fortitude  ! Even  the  proved  inability  to  tri- 
umph in  equal  combat,  purely  by  skill,  valor,  and  a 
good  ceuse,  does  not  bring  blushes  to  the  face  of  a 
brazen  patriotism  ; for  it  immediately  proceeds  to  pre- 
dict victory  from  its  boundless  numbers  and  resources, 


TO  THE  NATION 


6l 

set  in  contrast  to  the  fewness  of  the  foe,  the  shallow- 
ness of  his  exchequer,  the  shortness  of  his  provisions  ! 
Thus  we  expose  another  element  in  the  moral  condem- 
nation of  war.  It  does  not  even  settle  who  is  best 
man,  — which  was  the  strongest  thing  Carlyle  had  to 
say  for  it,  — still  less  who  has  the  best  cause,  but  only 
who  has  the  best  weapons,  or  the  most  unappeasable 
ferocity,  or  — poorest,  paltriest,  beggarliest  boast  of  all 
— who  has  the  longest  purse!  “We,  on  the  other 
hand,  have  unlimited  resources,  because  we  can  buy 
what  we  like.  Therefore  it  follows  that  ‘ reverses  ’ such 
as  that  sustained  by  General  Clements,  help  us,  not 
the  [enemy].”  30 

It  is  inevitable  that  windy  boastfulness  should  be 
accompanied  by  loss  of  self-respect,  balance,  and  that 
equanimity  which  is  the  mark  of  true  greatness.  It 
was  Rousseau  — a friend  of  peace  on  principle — who 
yet  despaired  of  peace  on  the  ground  of  its  very 
sanity;  “for,”  said  he,  “men  are  insane;  it  would, 
furthermore,  be  a sort  of  insanity  to  be  the  only  sane 
man  among  the  insane.”  Had  Rousseau  seen  a crowd 
of  frenzied  patriots  go  ■a.-mafficking,  he  would  have 
written  it  down  yet  more  strongly.  The  war  fever 
brings  on  fits  of  hysteria,  which  break  out  on  the 
smallest  occasion,  — the  relief  of  a city  or  the  capture 
of  a capital.  “The  whole  staff  of  the  Bank  of  Eng- 
land, in  the  presence  of  the  governor,  assembles  . . . 
to  sing  the  national  anthem.” 31  Devoid  equally  of 
chivalry  and  self-respect,  mobs  drunk  with  “ patriot- 
ism ” and  whisky  hail  the  news  of  battle  with  lust 
and  license.  A thousand  newspapers  bear  witness  to 


62 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


this  madness  of  a people.  The  streets  surge  with 
profanity,  insolence,  and  vice  ; masses  of  human 
hysteria  heave  to  and  fro  as  if  possessed  by  myste- 
rious and  uncontrollable  emotions  ; mixed  multitudes 
of  hooligans  and  stockjobbers,  clerks  and  harlots, 
pickpockets  and  Sunday-school  teachers,  bagmen  and 
factory  girls,  heterogeneously  mingle  and  embrace, 
waving  flags,  tooting  on  tin  whistles,  banging  inflated 
bladders,  yelling  out  such  scraps  of  patriotic  ditties  as 
their  feeble  brains  have  been  able  to  commit  to  memory, 
rolling  along  in  dense  masses  of  shrieking,  howling, 
sweating,  blaspheming,  dehumanized  humanity,  conse- 
crated to  worship  the  demon  of  patriotism  by  free  kisses 
and  mixed  dances  in  the  public  square,  — that  is  how 
they  bring  the  good  news  to  the  capital  city ! Bishops, 
generals,  and  other  respectable  persons  write  in  mighty 
surprise  and  very  mild  censure,  not  having  sense  to 
perceive  that  Demos  is  merely  taking  his  way  of  ex- 
pressing the  war  passions  that  have  been  expressed 
in  different,  but  not  better,  ways  by  them.  The  general 
fights  ; the  bishop  prays ; the  people  drink ; and  is  it 
not  a very  good  arrangement  ? The  people  cannot,  like 
the  generals,  be  always  fighting,  or,  like  the  bishops, 
be  always  praying  ; and  it  is  perfectly  natural  that 
Te  Deum  in  Westminster  should  be  set  off  by  delir- 
ium tremens  in  Trafalgar  Square.  Demos  gets  drunk 
with  a patriotism  diligently  fermented  within  him  by 
his  “betters,”  and  as  it  is  not  possible  for  him  to  read 
his  curses  piously  out  of  a pulpit,  he  hiccoughs  them 
without  hypocrisy  over  the  lips  of  the  pint  pot.  The 
bishops  should  be  consistent.  When  they  license  a 


TO  THE  NATION 


63 


saturnalia  of  revenge  and  blood  abroad,  it  is  absurd 
to  boggle  at  a minor  burst  of  lust  and  whisky  at 
home.  Demos  has  really  more  sense  of  the  fitness  of 
things  than  his  advisers.  It  is  quite  proper  to  accom- 
pany bloody  orgies  abroad  by  drunken  orgies  at  home. 
Having  lost  its  morals,  it  is  a small  matter  that  the 
nation  should  lose  its  head. 

Still  another  comfortable  fallacy  is  disproved  by 
actual  experience  of  a time  of  war,  — the  fallacy  that 
war  cements  domestic  factions  by  uniting  them  against 
a foreign  foe.  The  fact  is  that  war  creates  new 
domestic  discords.  Those  who  are  driven  mad  by  the 
war  fiend  do,  as  Rousseau  declared,  regard  peacemaking 
as  a kind  of  insanity,  and  are  ready  to  destroy  their 
own  countryman  who,  as  a peacemaker,  lays  finger 
on  the  helm  of  the  state  to  endeavor  to  turn  the 
ship’s  head  from  the  Red  Sea  to  the  Pacific  — from 
blood  to  peace.  An  attack  upon  the  first  principles 
of  citizenship  follows  directly  upon  the  suppression  of 
self-government  in  other  lands,  and  the  nation  that  has 
invaded  the  rights  of  another  immediately  proceeds  to 
destroy  its  own.  Mob  law  is  substituted  for  the  usages 
of  a society  still  euphemistically  referred  to  as  “free,” 
and  the  crowds,  turning  from  “mafficking”  to  riot, 
attack  public  meetings,  compelling  citizens  to  meet 
with  closed  doors  or  even  to  defend  their  doors  by 
force  of  arm  ; and  proceed  to  assault  the  persons  and 
the  homes  of  private  citizens,  and  to  drive  anti-war 
preachers  from  their  pulpits  for  no  other  reason  than 
that  they  ventured  to  express  opinions  contrary  to  the 
passion  of  the  hour.  The  reign  of  violence  is  quietly 


64 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


permitted  by  the  guardians  of  public  order  and  openly 
condoned  by  the  legislature.  Political  leaders  place 
responsibility  for  disorder  on  the  heads  of  those  who 
attempt  to  reason  with  an  excited  public,  declaring  that 
a person  is  responsible  for  time  and  place  chosen  to 
express  views  which  are  offensive  to  the  great  mass  of 
the  people,  and  must  be  careful  not  to  “ ask  more  of 
human  nature  than  all  history  shows  that  it  is  capable 
of  giving,”32  — a standard  of  judgment  which  would 
make  the  martyrs  responsible  for  their  own  murder, 
the  apostles  for  the  riots  which  frequently  accompanied 
their  preaching,  and  Jesus  Christ  for  his  own  cruci- 
fixion. Exchanging  diplomacy  for  truculence,  another 
will  express  his  gratification  that  “ the  people  have  the 
spirit  ...  to  show  the  world  at  large  that  the  country 
is  unanimous  except  for  a handful  of  agitating  scoun- 
drels,” and  is  “delighted  that  there  has  been  this  show 
of  feeling  throughout  the  country.”  33  The  New  York 
World  sums  up  the  situation  in  the  words  : “ Any  band 
of  street  ruffians  is  now  encouraged  to  enter  the  halls 
and  break  up  assemblies,  . . . expressing  views  at 
variance  with  the  government  policy.  Such  a denial 
of  free  speech  is  a deathblow  to  true  freedom.” 
Admirable  ! But  how  will  American  conduct  line  up 
with  this  American  opinion  when  “ comes  the  tug  of 
war”  ? Not  the  least  evil  of  war  is  that,  while  slaying 
the  supposed  enemies  of  the  nation  abroad,  it  silences 
or  also  slays  the  undoubted  friends  of  peace  and 
humanity  at  home. 

Nor,  in  these  days  of  aggression  and  standing  armies, 
— whatever  may  have  been  the  case  in  days  when  every 


TO  THE  NATION 


65 


citizen  and  peasant  became  a defender  against  invasion, 

— can  armed  conflict  be  excused  on  the  ground  that  it 
supplies  counteractives  to  excess  and  luxufy.  On  the 
contrary,  every  modern  war  will  be  found  hostile  to 
national  integrity  and  simplicity  of  character ; not 
merely  for  the  general  reason  that  a military  civiliza- 
tion is  hostile  to  the  higher  developments  of  citizenship, 
by  drawing  attention  away  from  the  spiritual  and 
universal  to  the  superficial  and  material,  but  for  the 
special  reason  that  it  is  so  mixed  up  with  territorial 
and  commercial  ambitions  as  to  foster  the  greed  and 
nourish  the  lustfulness  of  that  nation  which  wages  it. 
The  worst  evils  that  accompany  war’s  pathway  — such 
as  covetousness,  cruelty,  pride,  vulgarity  — defy  every 
test  of  scale  and  figure,  and  can  be  estimated  only  by 
the  religious  sense  ; but  such  grosser  forms  as  lunacy, 
pauperism,  vagrancy,  drunkenness,  crime,  which  can 
be  tabulated  by  the  scientist  and  the  statistician,  are 
proved  to  increase  with  every  new  campaign.34  Mili- 
tarism is  the  loathsome  fruit  of  an  incestuous  union 
between  Moloch  and  Mammon,  the  War  Office  and 
the  Stock  Exchange,  — a union  of  the  basest  and  beast- 
liest powers  of  this  world,  best  set  forth  in  a paraphrase 
of  the  words  of  a Christian  apostle  : “ When  lust  ” 

— either  gold  lust,  land  lust,  or  blood  lust  — “ hath 
conceived,  it  bringeth  forth  war  ; and  war,  when  it  is 
finished,  bringeth  forth  death.”  Once  started  on  the 
path  of  violence,  it  is  impossible  to  say  at  any  par- 
ticular point,  “ Here  will  we  halt  ” ; for  violence,  like 
an  avalanche,  acquires  momentum  as  it  goes.  The  mob, 
the  rioter,  the  buffoon,  and  the  hooligan,  at  home, 


66 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


follow  in  harmonious  procession  at  the  heel  of  the 
regiment,  the  incendiary,  the  spy,  the  pursuing  cavalry, 
abroad.35  Many  desire  no  fighting,  yet  when  they 
have  tasted  the  spoil  become  inflamed  with  lust  of 
possession,  and  fall  upon  the  booty  as  greedily  as  the 
gayest  buccaneer  of  them  all.  Over  and  above  the 
military  classes,  whose  trade  is  murder  and  robbery, 
there  are  multitudes  of  civilians  — shopkeepers,  mer- 
chants, miners,  sailors,  engineers,  shipbuilders,  gun- 
makers  — who,  finding  that  a temporary  addition  to 
their  gains  is  now  possible,  become  completely  de- 
moralized. A pocketful  of  gold  is  sufficient  to  make 
them  contemplate  without  remorse  a nation’s  ruin,  and 
to  positively  rejoice  in  a red  battlefield  if  it  brings 
them  a little  more  of  the  yellow  dirt.  People  ordinarily 
Christian,  who  in  their  private  capacity  would  not  filch 
so  much  as  a single  spoon,  are  then  prepared,  as  citi- 
zens, to  steal  an  entire  continent.  Though  the  law 
eternal  says  that  men  shall  not  steal,  the  same  judge 
who  consigns  to  hard  labor  the  hungry  wretch  who 
annexes  but  a single  purse,  will  consent  to  his  flushed 
and  full-fed  country  appropriating  an  entire  province. 
A wrong  which  commences  with  the  passion  of  a few 
is  continued  through  the  cupidity  of  the  many;  the 
few  declare  it  inevitable,  and  then  persuade  the  many 
that  annexation  is  the  inevitable  corollary. 

The  last  push  of  the  momentum  towards  aggravated 
evil  is  supplied  by  those  who,  having  disapproved  of 
the  initial  proceedings,  yet  do,  illogically  and  immor- 
ally, acquiesce  in  the  consequences  ; who  declared 
the  war  to  be  a blunder  and  a wrong,  but  afterwards 


TO  THE  NATION 


67 


express  their  willingness  to  enrich  their  country  by  its 
means ; who  protested  against  the  murder,  but  when 
the  murder  has  been  committed  are  ready  to  share  the 
plunder.  It  is  thus  that  wrong  is  added  to  wrong,  that 
murder  inevitably  leads  to  theft  and  slavery.  Hardly 
are  troops  landed  within  the  enemy’s  borders  before  his 
lands  are  mapped  out  for  possession  and  his  farms 
assigned  for  distribution  amongst  the  invaders.  Why 
not?  “To  the  victors  the  spoils”  was  the  good  old 
barbaric  rule,  and  since  the  belligerent  nation  is  ulti- 
mately compelled  to  swallow  the  entire  barbaric  code, 
it  is  matter  of  course  that  the  conquered  men  should 
become  serfs  in  the  field  and  the  women  slaves  in  the 
scullery.  The  proudest  and  freest  nation  in  the  world 
will  not  be  able  to  save  itself  from  that  horrible  slide 
into  barbarism.  Even  though  it  has  boasted  of  being 
the  champion  of  freedom  and  the  friend  of  those  who 
struggle  to  be  free,  nothing  can  save  the  liberationist 
from  becoming  the  enslaver.  The  veil  of  self-deception 
will  fall  from  its  eyes  and  the  mask  of  hypocrisy  from 
its  face  ; it  will  become  a hissing  and  a reproach  to  all 
the  nations  of  the  earth. 

In  earlier  ages  war  is  a sign  of  ethical  immaturity  ; 
in  later  ages,  of  national  decay  ; but  amid  all  the  signs 
of  decadence  none  is  more  astonishing  than  the  incom- 
ing of  the  spirit  of  cowardice.  After  all  it  is  fear  that 
makes  men  fight  — fear  of  loss  or  wrong,  if  not  of 
death ; and,  paradoxical  though  it  may  seem,  it  is  the 
truth  that  a military  system  fosters  a cowardly  temper 
in  the  nation  that  endures  it.  In  the  act  and  purpose 
of  war  a people  who  have  acknowledged  the  Christian 


68 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


or  universal  ideal  are  necessarily,  though  to  some 
extent  unconsciously,  enfeebled  by  their  very  short- 
coming, afflicted  by  a haunting  sense  of  degradation, 
lost  power,  moral  weakness,  which,  in  turn,  produces, 
surely  enough,  even  physical  shrinking  and  timidity. 
More  particularly  is  it  impossible  for  the  horrible  wars 
of  modern  civilization  to  go  on,  — wars  waged  against 
savage  tribes  whom  modern  steamships  and  railways 
enable  us  for  the  first  time  to  get  at  effectively,  and 
for  the  avowed  purpose  of  finding  outlets  for  the 
piratical  spirit  in  modern  politics  and  trade,  — these 
“ punitive  expeditions  ” cannot  go  on  without  encour- 
aging the  temper  of  the  bully  and  the  beast,  which, 
in  a man,  is  also  the  temper  of  the  coward  ; for 
they  imply  the  slaughter  of  pitifully  equipped  hordes 
before  machinery  of  most  murderous  power,  and  the 
maximum  of  death  to  them  with  the  minimum  of 
loss  to  the  assailant.  The  moral  law  cannot  be  abro- 
gated with  impunity.  As  we  read  of  some  who,  pro- 
fessing themselves  to  be  wise,  become  fools,  so  it  is 
possible  for  those  who  boast  themselves  brave  to  be- 
come cowards. 

But  it  is  when  the  possibility  of  strife  between  fairly 
matched  combatants  arises  that  the  recreant  spirit  begins 
to  show  itself  openly.  What  else  is  the  significance  of 
this  never-ceasing  clamor  for  armaments,  and  ever 
more  armaments?  We  live  in  perpetual  fear  — fear  of 
invasion,  of  collisions  about  trade  or  colonial  expansion 
— and  amid  persistent  panic  incompatible  with  moral 
courage.  War  scares  are  seldom  out  of  the  newspapers, 
and  the  normal  condition  of  every  people  is  one  of 


TO  THE  NATION 


69 


nervous  dread.  They  are  afraid  of  what  a day  may 
bring  forth,  feverish  about  the  designs  of  this  country 
or  that,  jealous  of  the  least  semblance  of  superiority 
in  arms ; and  there  is  no  faith  on  the  earth.  Though 
history  shows  conclusively  that  it  is  not  deficient  arms 
but  deficient  morals  that  bring  nations  to  ruin,  they' 
are  unable  to  raise  themselves  up  to  confidence  in 
moral  rectitude,  in  the  protecting  power  of  justice, 
or  in  the  blessing  of  God.  Though  the  examples  of 
ancient  empires,  such  as  Assyria  or  Rome,  prove  that 
omnipotent  power  cannot  save  unless  backed  by  excel- 
lent virtue,  that  nations  go  to  pieces  not  by  weak  arma- 
ments but  bad  conduct,  our  political  governors  drive  us 
to  conclude  that  the  conception  of  a moral  government 
of  the  universe  has  vanished  from  politics  : the  vast 
proportion  of  their  resources  is  devoted  to  the  destruc- 
tion of  men  rather  than  the  creation  and  development 
of  a nobler  type  of  humanity  ; and  when,  by  the  princi- 
ple of  reminiscence,  they  accidentally  lapse  into  the 
language  of  piety,  their  words  merely  suggest  that  cant 
and  hypocrisy  with  which  the  rivals  in  arms  not  unnat- 
urally reproach  each  other.  The  fact  is  that  militarism 
is  a disease  which,  like  consumption  or  fever,  produces 
certain  delusive  appearances  of  health  and  beauty,  but 
brings  death  to  the  moral  sense,  and,  in  the  end,  to 
the  state.  The  materialist  may  still  mistake  immense 
possessions  for  immense  strength,  and  the  vicious  trans- 
late self-interest  into  political  justice  ; but  infallible 
signs  of  decadence  may,  by  those  who  have  eyes  to 
see,  be  read  in  the  waning  of  moral  vision,  enthusiasm 
for  liberty,  power  to  aspire,  and  in  the  wasting  effects 


70 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


of  the  war  fever  which  appears  to  attack  modern  nations 
at  such  short  intervals. 

It  is  thus  that  the  last  defense  of  war  falls,  — the 
defense,  namely,  that  it  strengthens  faith  by  bringing 
a people  to  feel  their  dependence  on  God.  The  reli- 
gious condition  of  every  warrior  people — whether  stud- 
ied in  the  page  of  history  or  seen  through  the  eye  of 
a contemporary  observer  — gives  the  lie  direct  to  that 
specious  fallacy.  Not  only  does  the  formal  thing  called 
“ religion  ” fail  to  present  an  adequate  bulwark  against 
the  invading  tide  of  vice,  cruelty,  and  fear,  but  the 
ethical  principles  of  Jesus  and  the  great  teachers  are 
openly  flouted  by  the  bolder  spirits,  and  quietly  ignored 
by  the  more  timid,  whilst  all  unite  to  stigmatize  as 
a fool  and  a knave  the  man  who,  when  the  trumpet 
sounds,  insists  upon  the  validity  of  the  Sermon  on 
the  Mount  and  those  fraternal  laws  written  upon  the 
fleshly  tables  of  all  hearts.  National  religion,  no  doubt, 
retains  the  words  “ mercy,”  “ repentance,”  “ restitu- 
tion,” in  its  vocabulary,  but  without  intending  them 
for  political  consumption.  They  are  merely,  like  King 
James’  Bible,  “appointed  to  be  read  in  churches.” 
Those  who  have  canceled  the  Commandments,  re- 
scinded the  Beatitudes,  and  wiped  the  Golden  Rule 
off  the  slate  try  to  hide  the  greatness  of  their  fall  by 
the  volubility  of  their  abuse,  and  appear  to  think  it 
sufficient  to  brand  the  man  who  still  tries  to  be  an 
ethicist  and  a Christian  as  a sentimentalist,  a coward, 
a traitor,  or  — last,  dreaded,  fearsomest  nickname  of 
all  — a “ peace-at-any-price  ” man!  “Zeal  for  a public 
cause,”  says  Addison,  “is  apt  to  breed  passions  in  the 


TO  THE  NATION 


7 1 


hearts  of  virtuous  persons,  to  which  the  regard  of  their 
own  private  interest  would  never  have  betrayed  them.” 
Hence  it  comes  that  the  bitter  tares  of  the  war  spirit 
are  gathered  from  the  very  soil  of  domestic  affection, 
and  speedily  stifle  the  kindlier  growths  of  neighbor- 
liness and  common  citizenship. 

But  the  greatness  of  the  pressure  to  succumb  only 
enhances  the  obligation  to  stand  fast  in  religious  in- 
tegrity; for  the  only  hope  of  national  salvation  is  in 
individual  faithfulness.  When  the  great  mass  of  a 
people  are  blinded  by  passion  and  fevered  by  selfish- 
ness, it  is  the  more  necessary  for  an  individual  to  main- 
tain his  sanity,  his  ethical  perceptions,  his  religious 
principles,  and,  like  salt,  to  preserve  the  body  from 
decay.  Whilst  on  every  side  righteousness  is  being 
sacrificed  to  a bastard  patriotism,  and  the  imagined 
welfare  of  the  state  is  being  purchased  by  the  con- 
science of  the  individual,  the  just  man  will  insist  that 
nothing  can  be  good  that  is  not  also  right,  nor  any- 
thing expedient  that  is  not  also  honest.  The  chief 
hope  of  a war-frenzied  nation  is  in  those  persons  who 
“ buy  the  truth,  and  sell  it  not  ” under  whatever  provo- 
cation and  inducement.  The  true  saviors  of  a country 
are  those  “few  names,  even  in  Sardis,  which  have  not 
defiled  their  garments.” 


72 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


REFERENCES 

1.  Algernon  Swinburne,  Times , October  n,  1899. 

2.  “ Ode  to  the  Bayonet,”  in  The  Express , London,  [Mr. 
Pearson] : 

And  there ’s  some  as  backs  the  sabre, 

And  some  the  shrapnel  shell, 

But  Tommy  backs  the  baynit, 

And  Jock,  ’e  backs  the  baynit, 

And  Pat,  ’e  loves  the  baynit, 

And  they  ’ll  follow  it  to  ’ell  1 

Ho  ! clear  the  way  for  ’ere  ’e  comes, 

When  Tommy  joins  the  ’unt, 

With  the  stabbin’  of  the  baynit, 

The  baynit,  the  bloody  baynit, 

Gawd  ’elp  the  man  in  front. 

The  flashing,  gashing  baynit, 

The  ruddy,  bloody  baynit  ! 

3.  See  New  Age , May  28,  1903. 

4.  Spectator , March  15,  1902. 

5.  Bennet  Burleigh,  Telegraph , London,  January  29,  1900. 

6.  Viscount  Cranborne,  New  Age , March  20,  1902. 

7.  Sir  David  Gamble,  St.  Helen's  Newspaper. 

8.  Insulting  an  Enemy  : 

The  following  incident  was  described  in  the  Cape  Times  of  August 
28,  1900,  a paper  which  supported,  and  was  patronised  by,  Sir  A.  Milner  : 

On  Monday,  August  27,  1900,  Admiral  and  Lady  Harris  gave  an 
official  garden  party  at  Admiralty  House,  Simons  Town,  to  which  all 
the  society,  Dutch  and  English,  of  Cape  Town  were  invited.  Sir  A. 
Milner  was  staying  in  the  House  as  a guest.  Amongst  the  amusements 
provided  for  his  Dutch  guests  by  the  Admiral,  and  participated  in  by 
Sir  A.  Milner,  was  “ a sort  of  puny  gallows  with  lines  across,  and  from 
these  hung  some  of  the  weirdest  caricatures  evolved  by  even  the  most 
sport-loving  R.  N-er.  On  the  top  row  a cardboard  image  of  Oom  Paul 
— with  top  hat  and  Vierkleur  complete  — scowled  at  the  detested  Eng- 
lish. Near  him  a spectacled,  baldheaded,  much  moustached  infant  in 
short  frocks  crawled  on  a visionary  floor.  To  the  right  a very  tall  per- 
son with  a stoop,  a cynical  sneer,  and  telescopic  boots,  had  a good  posi- 
tion on  the  line.  Those  were  targets  for  all  who  chose  to  try  their  skill 


TO  THE  NATION 


73 


with  a Lee-Metford,  fitted  with  the  Morris  tube.  Mr.  Kruger’s  present- 
ment was  soon  like  a sieve,  and  there  were  scores  of  little  round  holes 
in  the  other  figures.  Oddly,  no  one  seemed  to  care  to  ‘plug’  a corpu- 
lent Chinaman  hanging  next  door  to  the  infant.  His  Excellency  made 
good  practice  with  the  rifle.” 

How  deeply  this  incident  wounded  Dutch' sentiment  may  be  gathered 
from  the  comments  in  the  ensuing  issue  of  the  leading  Dutch  paper, 
Ons  Land,  and  reproduced  in  the  South  African  News  of  August  31st, 
which  pointed  out  that,  — 

“ Those  who  see  the  caricatures  published  by  the  local  weekly  gutter 
Press  will  have  no  difficulty  in  recognising  in  the  Cape  caricatures  these 
of  Messrs.  Merriman  and  J.  T.  Molteno.  The  first  has  been  for  thirty 
years  a member  of  the  Cape  Parliament,  and  was  until  lately  one  of  the 
Constitutional  advisers  of  the  Admiral’s  most  highly  placed  guest.  . . . 
In  the  case  of  the  other  figure,  that  of  President  Kruger,  the  manliness, 
the  chivalry,  the  good  taste  and  good  feeling  of  the  officers  who  pre- 
pared the  figure  and  of  the  guests  who  shot  at  it,  will  be  universally 
admired.  An  old  man  of  seventy-five  forms  an  excellent  butt  for  delicate 
witticisms  of  that  sort.  . . . How  well  is  this  incident  calculated  to  les- 
sen race-feeling  and  induce  mutual  respect  and  goodwill ! ” 

This  incident  was  commented  on  with  much  emphasis  in  the  Press 
both  at  the  Cape  and  in  London,  but  no  contradiction  or  explanation 
has  ever  been  vouchsafed  by  Sir  A.  Milner. 

Sir  Alfred  Milner  as  Governor,  p.  17. 

9.  John  Stuart,  Morning  Post,  London,  June  27,  1900. 

10.  Captain  L.  March  Phillipps,  author  of  With  Runington. 

1 1 . Ibid. 

12.  A trooper,  Hawick  News , February  15,  1901. 

13.  Committee  South  African  Distress  Fund,  April,  1903. 

14.  Boer  generals’  “ Appeal  to  the  Civilized  World.” 

15.  Letters  of  “Scrutator”  (Cape  Town)  to  Mornuig  Leader, 
London. 

16.  Special  correspondent,  Daily  News,  London. 

17.  Report  of  Ladies'  Commission  on  the  South  Africa7i  Con- 
centratioji  Catnps,  p.  174. 

18.  Blue  Books,  see  New  Age,  May  28,  1903. 

19.  Dean  of  Maritzburg,  ibid. 

20.  How  War  impairs  the  Humane  Sense  : 

(a)  Testimony  of  “An  Officer  in  the  Field,”  December,  1900. 

It  was  sufficient  that  arms  were  discovered:  firewood  was  at  once 
collected;  the  wife  and  little  children,  bedridden  old  men  and  women, 


74 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


were  ordered  out,  without  a moment’s  respite,  and  the  homestead 
burned  before  their  eyes.  It  was  midwinter,  and  the  nights  were  inde- 
scribably cold ; heavy  frost  lay  on  the  ground,  and  in  these  thinly 
peopled  districts  there  were  often  no  neighbors  to  give  them  shelter. 
It  was  murder,  as  cold-blooded  and  deliberate  as  if  they  had  been 
placed  against  a wall  and  shot ; worse,  indeed,  because  their  sufferings 
would  have  been  sooner  over. 

Later  on  houses  were  burnt  on  all  sorts  of  pretexts,  — because 
De  Wet  had  evaded  our  generals,  and  bringing  his  commando  from  a 
hundred  miles  off  had  captured  a post  on  the  railway;  because  a com- 
mando had  marched  that  way  and  some  of  the  men  were  supposed 
to  have  slept  in  the  houses  ; because  some  of  the  inhabitants  were  said 
to  have  given  information  to  the  enemy  ; until  farm  burning  has  become 
the  daily  business  of  the  soldiers. 

Now  matters  have  proceeded  so  far  that  pretexts  are  no  longer 
required.  It  is  enough  that  a colonist  or  a Kaffir  should  inform  a gen- 
eral that  one  of  the  men  of  a house  is  absent,  presumably  fighting. 
Often  it  happens  that  he  has  been  killed  in  the  war,  and  the  widow  has 
been  vainly  waiting  for  tidings  of  her  husband  ; but  a patrol  is  sent  to 
the  place,  and,  if  he  is  not  found,  out  go  the  women  and  children  ; 
and,  lest  they  might  find  a corner  of  shelter  in  the  blackened  ruin, 
dynamite  is  employed  to  complete  the  destruction. 

This  may  seem  incredible,  but  I do  not  make  any  statements  which 
cannot  easily  be  proved.  General  X- — — has  recently  burnt  the  dwelling 
houses  in  a whole  tract  of  country,  twenty  miles  in  extent,  northeast 
of  Pretoria,  for  no  reason  whatever  except  that  the  men  are  said  to  be 
fighting  against  him. 

(b)  Testimony  of  Lieutenant  E.  W.  B.  Morrison,  Ottawa  Citi- 
zen, January  7,  1901. 

From  that  on  during  the  rest  of  the  trek,  which  lasted  four  days, 
our  progress  was  like  the  old-time  forays  in  the  Highlands  of  Scotland 
two  centuries  ago.  The  country  is  very  like  Scotland,  and  we  moved 
on  from  valley  to  valley,  “lifting”  cattle  and  sheep,  burning,  looting, 
and  turning  out  the  women  and  children  to  sit  and  cry  beside  the  ruins 
of  their  once  beautiful  farmsteads.  During  the  days  that  followed  it 
was  our  duty  to  go  into  action  on  the  hills  and  cover  with  our  guns 
the  troops  who  did  the  burning.  We  did  not  get  anything  like  a fair 
share  of  the  loot,  but  I don’t  think  my  men  objected  to  that.  We 
burned  a track  about  six  miles  wide  through  these  fertile  valleys,  and 
completely  destroyed  the  village  of  Wilpoort  and  the  town  of  Dull- 
stroom.  The  column  left  a trail  of  fire  and  smoke  behind  it  that  could 
be  seen  at  Belfast.  Some  of  the  houses  that  were  too  solidly  built  to 


TO  THE  NATION 


75 


bum  were  blown  up.  Away  off  on  a flank  you  could  see  a huge  toad- 
stool of  dust,  rocks,  and  rafters  rise  solemnly  into  the  air  and  then 
subside  in  a heap  of  debris.  Ten  seconds  afterwards  a tremendous 
roar  like  the  report  of  a cow  gun  would  rend  the  air,  and  the  dust 
would  blow  slowly  away.  Many  of  the  houses  were  surrounded  by 
beautiful  gardens  abloom  with  roses,  lilies,  and  hollyhocks,  and  embow- 
ered in  fruit  trees.  As  we  sat  by  the  guns  we  could  see  a troop  of 
mounted  men  streaming  off  towards  a farm.  With  my  glasses  I could 
see  the  women  and  children  bundled  out,  their  bedding  thrown  through 
the  windows  after  them.  The  soldiers  would  carry  it  out  of  reach  of 
the  flames,  and  the  next  moment  smoke  would  commence  curling  up 
from  the  windows  and  doors  — at  first  a faint  blue  mist,  then  becoming 
denser,  until  it  rolled  away  in  clouds.  The  cavalry  would  ride  rapidly 
away,  and  the  poor  women  and  children,  utterly  confounded  by  the 
sudden  visitation,  would  remain  standing  in  the  yard  or  garden  watch- 
ing their  home  disappearing  in  fire  and  smoke. 

(c)  Testimony  of  various  soldiers’  letters,  New  Age , July  4, 
1900. 

“We  have  been  chasing  Hans  Botha  and  capturing  cattle,  sheep, 
horses,  etc.,  and  burning  down  the  farms  and  grass  all  over  the 
country.” 

“We  burnt  down  about  thirty  farms  and  brought  in  the  wives  and 
the  families,  and  burnt  all  the  grass  and  everything  that  came  in  front 
of  us  ; and  they  are  doing  the  same  everywhere  now.  We  took  all  the 
cattle  they  had,  smashed  all  the  furniture,  and  then  burnt  the  lot.” 

“We  used  to  have  plenty  of  fun.  I’ve  smashed  dozens  of  pianos.. 
Half  a dozen  of  us  would  go  up  to  as  fine  a grand  piano  as  ever  I ’ve 
seen.  Some  would  commence  playing  on  the  keys  with  the  butts  of 
their  rifles.  Others  would  smash  off  the  legs  and  panels  and  finally 
completely  wreck  it.  Pictures  would  be  turned  into  targets,  and  the 
piano  panels  would  be  taken  outside  and  used  as  fuel  to  boil  our  tea 
or  coffee.  ...  After  this  we  would  set  the  building  on  fire.” 

(d)  Testimony  of  a color  sergeant,  Morning  Leader , Novem- 
ber 13,  1900. 

I think  the  war  is  nearly  come  to  a close,  and  that  brave  race  of 
people  talked  about  called  Boers  has  vanished. 

We  go  out  once  or  twice  a week  for  two,  three,  and  sometimes  five 
days,  and  have  a little  sniping,  burn  a few  farms,  get  a few  chickens, 
ducks,  and  fodder,  corn,  etc.,  and  return  home. 

We  went  out  for  five  days  last  week  under  General  Barton;  the 
weather  was  grand  both  night  and  day.  We  burnt  about  twenty  farms, 


;6 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


and  all  the  furniture  inside  them  ; some  splendid  pianos  and  organs 
were  burnt,  and  it  was  pitiful  to  see  the  mothers  patting  their  little 
sons  on  the  neck  and  pacifying  them. 

We  took  over  ^6000  worth  of  stuff  from  Botha’s  farm,  — cattle, 
grain,  forage,  wagons,  etc.  The  young  women  knelt  down  and  prayed, 
Bible  in  hand,  and  I assure  you  the  tears  rolled  down  my  cheeks  for 
a moment  when  I was  ordered  to  smash  and  set  fire  to  a splendid  set 
of  furniture  and  a piano  at  a house  where  an  old  lady,  three  nice  young 
girls,  and  a boy  were  imploring  me  to  spare  them  their  furniture. 

But,  on  the  whole,  these  five  days  out  were  a picnic  to  all  of  us. 

21.  Rudyard  Kipling,  War  against  War , p.  148. 

22.  Sir  George  Grey. 

23.  Rev.  R.  F.  Collins,  army  chaplain. 

24.  Winston  Churchill. 

25.  Lawrence  Richardson. 

26.  Archbishop  of  Armagh,  New  Age , May  28,  1903. 

27.  Canon  Knox  Little,  ibid. 

28.  Sir  George  Colley,  War  against  War  in  South  Africa , 
p.  263. 

29.  Erskine  Childers,  Times , March  6,  1901. 

The  Patriotic  Lie  Demonstrated,  by  Captain  H.  G.  Casson, 
South  Wales  Borderers,  Times , April  6,  1901: 

The  following  Retiter  telegram  appeared  in  the  Times , weekly  edition 
of  February  15,  under  heading,  “The  Military  Situation”  : 

“ Krugersdorp,  February  2.  It  is  stated  that  Dr.  Walker,  who  was 
among  the  killed,  had  received  three  bullet  wounds,  but  was  finally  dis- 
patched by  a Boer,  who  battered  in  his  skull  with  a stone.” 

As  I was  in  command  of  the  post  captured  at  Modderfontein,  I 
trust  that  in  common  fairness  to  the  enemy,  and  with  a view  to  minimiz- 
ing as  far  as  possible  the  pain  that  must  already  have  been  caused,  you 
will  allow  me  to  offer  an  unqualified  denial  to  the  above  statement.  Dr. 
Walker  was  hit  once  only,  and  by  a stray  bullet,  on  the  early  morning  of 
January  31,  while  it  was  still  dark  ; he  died  the  same  afternoon  from  the 
natural  effects  of  the  wound.  Every  possible  kindness  was  shown  to 
the  wounded  by  the  Boers,  who  posted  a sentry  to  see  that  no  one 
came  or  otherwise  interfered  with  them.  The  Boer  commandant  pres- 
ent at  the  time  expressed  to  Dr.  Walker  his  sorrow'  that  he  should 
have  been  w'ounded,  and  later  in  the  day  the  Boer  general  himself  per- 
sonally expressed  to  me  his  deep  regret  for  the  sad  occurrence,  while 
many  of  the  burghers,  when  conversing  with  my  men,  also  spoke  to 
the  same  effect. 


TO  THE  NATION 


77 


30.  St.  James'  Gazette. 

31.  Times , March  2,  1900. 

32.  A.  J.  Balfour,  House  of  Commons,  March,  1900. 

33.  Mr.  Bartley,  ibid. 

34.  War’s  Vicious  Reaction  on  a Nation’s  Character  : 

(a)  Testimony  of  Dr.  R.  S.  Stewart,  British  Medical  Journal , 
London,  November  28,  1903. 

There  was  evidence  to  show  that  the  war  produced  a profound 
though  temporary  modification  in  national  character  and  conduct.  . . . 
The  lunacy  population  has  increased  with  marked  rapidity  in  the  years 
1901  and  1902.  Homicidal  crime  also  showed  a marked  diminution 
during  the  first  period  of  the  war.  The  year  1900,  however,  witnessed 
a steady  weakening  of  the  (good)  influence  exerted  by  the  events  of 
the  preceding  quarter,  until  in  the  closing  months  of  1900  crimes  of 
murder  showed  a distinct  increase  above  the  corresponding  months 
of  previous  years.  The  murders  of  newly  born  children,  a peculiarly 
female  crime,  showed  in  1900  an  increase  of  6.1  per  cent.  “Combining 
homicidal,  suicidal,  and  sexual  offenses  under  one  heading  as  crimes 
of  an  impulsive  or  passional  kind,”  says  Dr.  Stewart,  the  temporary 
decrease  of  these  in  the  winter  of  1899  was  followed  by  their  increase 
to  a normal  level  in  1900,  and  in  December,  1900,  there  was  an  increase 
of  12.5  per  cent,  and  in  the  following  year  the  increase  was  9 per  cent. 
During  the  first  period  of  the  war,  concludes  Dr.  Stewart,  there  was 
an  improvement  of  the  nation’s  morale , but  this  slowly  vanished  by  the 
end  of  a year,  and  there  was  a return  to  something  even  worse  than 
previously  prevailing  conditions,  — a reaction  that  is  likely  to  produce 
still  more  grave  results. 

(b)  Testimony  of  G.  Shaw  Lefevre,  The  Speaker,  London. 

It  was  an  unpleasant  surprise  to  him  “to  find  how  largely  pauper- 
ism, drunkenness,  vagrancy,  and  crime  had  increased.”  In  1900  there 
was  1 pauper  to  42  of  the  population;  in  1901  the  number  increased 
to  1 in  40;  in  1902  to  1 in  38.4.  Returns  for  1901  showed  a large 
increase  of  prison  population  ; and  in  drunkenness  a very  large  and 
continuous  increase,  against  considerable  reductions  in  previous  years. 
The  average  of  vagrants  relieved  in  workhouses  increased  20  per  cent 
in  1902,  and,  as  compared  with  ten  years  ago,  100  percent.  Mr.  Lefevre 
says,  respecting  the  causes,  “ Can  it  be  doubted  that  they  are  inti- 
mately connected  with  the  late  war  ? ” He  mentions  the  increased  taxes, 
higher  prices,  falling  off  of  employment.  Beyond  these,  however,  we 
cannot  avoid  tracing  the  moral  degeneration  caused  by  war,  which  is, 
after  all,  the  most  serious  part  of  the  cost  of  war. 


78 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


35.  How  the  Foreign  Campaign  perpetuates  itself  at 
Home  : 

The  Real  Thing:  Morning  Leader,  June  11  (extract  from  a letter  in 
the  Boston  Guardian  and  Lincolnshire  Independent,  dated  Heilbron, 
April  17)  : 

The  first  day  out  from  here  was  quiet,  but  we  burned  all  farms,  native 
kraals,  outbuildings,  and  other  places  that  might  afford  shelter  for  the 
Boers  in  bad  weather ; we  also  killed  all  fowls,  ducks,  geese,  and  pigs, 
turkeys  or  any  kind  of  poultry,  and  collected  all  horses,  cattle,  and 
sheep  into  herds,  and  drove  them  along  with  us,  and  I could  not  help 
thinking  what  a waste  it  was  to  kill  good  things  for  the  sake  of  killing, 
after  we  had  halted;  but  it  was  grand  sport  chasing  young  cockerels 
and  chopping  geese’s  heads  off,  hearing  pianos  play  as  they  were  rolled 
upside  down  on  to  a fire  lit  in  the  middle  of  a room,  piling  pictures  and 
brackets,  etc.,  on  a deal  table  and  then  putting  a straw  mattress  under- 
neath to  start  the  blaze. 

On  the  second  day  we  had  over  twenty  fires  on  the  go  before  nine  in 
the  morning,  and  had  got  about  six  or  seven  miles  from  our  last  halting 
place  when  we  got  a check  for  a couple  of  hours,  as  we  had  to  clear  the 
front  before  we  could  get  any  further. 

Next  morning  . . . we  destroyed  the  nicest  residence  I have  seen  in 
the  country.  I forget  his  name  that  used  to  live  at  it,  but  he  was  next 
in  position  to  the  President  of  the  late  Orange  Free  State  Republic.  It 
took  us  all  the  afternoon  to  get  it  all  destroyed. 

The  threshing  machines  made  the  best  fire,  but  the  most  interesting 
part  for  me  was  to  see  the  explosion  of  a traction  engine  that  worked 
all  the  farm  machinery.  It  was  built  in  England,  and  it  was  over  an 
hour  from  the  time  the  fire  was  lit  before  the  boiler  burst. 

The  Realistic  Drama:  Morning  Leader,  June  15: 

On  Tuesday  last  Hull  gave  a welcome  to  a contingent  of  its  volun- 
teers returning  from  South  Africa.  Some  of  the  incidents  of  the  recep- 
tion are  to  be  found  in  the  Hull  News  of  the  following  day  : “ The  first 
two  items  in  this  programme  of  destruction  were  the  breaking  up  of  an 
Italian’s  street  organ  and  an  ice-cream  cart.  The  latter  vehicle  soon  suc- 
cumbed to  the  attacks  of  the  destroyers,  and  the  “freezer”  disappeared 
mysteriously.  The  organ,  however,  presented  greater  difficulties,  and  it 
must  have  taken  the  mob  over  half  an  hour  to  completely  disintegrate 
it.  Meanwhile  the  owners  of  these  itinerant  storages  of  ice  cream  and 
music  decamped  — perhaps  not  unwisely.  The  disorderly  element  of  the 
crowd  then  proceeded  to  set  fire  to  the  remains  of  the  piano-organ. 
This  took  place  near  the  entrance  to  the  station  booking  office,  and 
the  sparks  from  the  burning  materials  flew  in  all  directions.  Luckily 
nothing  of  an  inflammable  nature  was  near  or  the  damage  done  might 
have  been  extensive.” 


Ill 

THE  MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR  TO 
THE  CHILD 


In  our  early  years  we  know  war  only  as  it  offers  itself  to  us  at  a 
review.  . . . War,  as  we  first  see  it,  is  decked  with  gay  and  splendid 
trappings,  and  wears  a countenance  of  joy.  It  moves  with  a measured 
and  graceful  step  to  the  sound  of  the  heart-stirring  fife  and  drum.  Its 
instruments  of  death  wound  only  the  air.  Such  is  war ; the  youthful 
eye  is  dazzled  with  its  ornaments  ; the  youthful  heart  dances  to  its 
animated  sounds.  It  seems  a pastime  full  of  spirit  and  activity,  the 
very  sport  in  which  youth  delights.  These  false  views  of  war  are  con- 
firmed by  our  earliest  reading.  We  are  intoxicated  with  the  exploits  of 
the  conqueror,  as  recorded  in  real  history  or  in  glowing  fiction.  . . . 
Particularly  by  the  study  of  the  ancient  poets  and  historians  the  senti- 
ments of  early  and  barbarous  ages  on  the  subject  of  war  are  kept  alive 
in  the  mind.  The  trumpet  which  roused  the  fury  of  Achilles  and  of 
the  hordes  of  Greece  still  resounds  in  our  ears ; and,  though  Chris- 
tians by  profession,  some  of  our  earliest  and  deepest  impressions  are 
received  in  the  school  of  uncivilized  antiquity.  ...  We  become  recon- 
ciled to  it  as  to  a fixed  law  of  our  nature ; and  consider  the  thought  of 
its  abolition  as  extravagant  as  an  attempt  to  chain  the  winds  or  arrest 
the  lightning.  — Channing. 


Ill 


THE  MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR  TO  THE  CHILD 

Amongst  other  deities,  the  ancient  Ammonites  wor- 
shiped a fire  god  called  Moloch;  and  this  monster 
was  supposed  by  his  worshipers  to  require  various 
atrocious  forms  of  sacrifice,  beginning  with  simple 
mutilation  and  rising  through  different  ordeals  by  fire 
till  they  culminated  in  the  burnt  offering  of  living  chil- 
dren. According  to  tradition  the  image  of  this  misbe- 
gotten deity  was  constructed  in  the  form  of  a gigantic 
man  surmounted  by  a calf’s  head,  all  of  brass,  hollow, 
with  outstretched  arms;  and  when  this  dreadful  creation 
had  been  filled  with  fire,  red  hot,  flames  issuing,  the 
child  was  placed  in  the  wide-extended  furnace-palm 
of  the  hand,  as  an  offering  of  peculiarly  sweet-smelling 
savor  to  Moloch.  The  blandishments  of  this  benign 
deity  were  such  that  even  the  Israelites  were  unable 
to  resist  them,  in  spite  of  the  severe  penalties  exacted 
by  their  law;  and  Jeremiah  tells  how,  in  his  day,  they 
“ built  the  high  places  of  Baal,  which  are  in  the  valley 
of  the  son  of  Hinnom,  to  cause  their  sons  and  their 
daughters  to  pass  through  the  fire  unto  Molech.” 

The  military  Moloch,  to  whom  modern  Christendom 
dedicates  the  greatest  proportion  of  its  wealth,  the 
largest  number  of  its  children,  and  the  highest  prin- 
ciples of  its  morality,  is  not,  like  his  Ammonite  original, 

81 


82 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


exclusively  a fire  god,  but  also  a blood  god,  a lust  god, 
and  a famine  god;  for  he  requires  sacrifice  by  the  vari- 
ous methods  of  burning,  blasting,  dismembering,  bleed- 
ing to  death,  starvation;  demands  occasional  lust  orgies, 
and  the  permanent  surrender  of  purity  on  the  part  of 
a large  number  of  those  engaged  in  his  service;  and, 
worst  of  all,  consumes  in  his  hellish  fires  that  love,  pity, 
mercy,  forgiveness,  chivalry,  which  are  at  the  heart  of 
all  true  religion  and  ethics,  and  are  increasingly  essen- 
tial to  the  faiths  of  all  modern  men.  This  last  decree 
is  not  that  which  impresses  the  imagination  grown 
familiar  with  his  rites,  but  to  those  gifted  with  ideal 
faculty  it  appears  truly  the  most  horrid  of  all;  for  to 
present  the  bodies  of  our  sons  to  the  military  Moloch 
is  a crime  inferior  in  rank  and  dire  results  to  that  of 
sacrificing  their  moral  nature,  ethical  development,  and 
promise  of  expansion  of  ideal  powers.  But,  by  methods 
which  the  lively  words  of  William  Ellery  Channing  have 
pictured  to  the  dullest  sense,  we  have  been  so  success- 
ful in  popularizing  the  worship  of  this  baleful  god  that 
great  numbers  of  children,  as  soon  as  they  are  of  age, 
offer  themselves  as  sacrifices,  and  march  off  to  be  run 
through,  blown  up,  starved,  rotted  by  disease,  whilst 
all  the  rest,  young  and  old,  applaud  them  as  the  great- 
est heroes  imaginable  ; just  as,  according  to  an  old  his- 
torian, three  hundred  Carthaginian  children  freely 
offered  themselves  to  the  fire  god  in  order,  as  they 
supposed,  to  preserve  their  city  from  capture.  But  the 
fire  god  did  not  save  Carthage  ; neither  can  its  blood 
god  save  Christendom.  Without  saving  the  state  we 
sacrifice  the  child.  We  do  not  even  have  the  satisfaction 


TO  THE  CHILD 


83 


of  the  rapt  De  Quincey  in  his  mysterious  “ Dream- 
Fugue”:  “ O,  baby!  shalt  thou  be  the  ransom  for 
Waterloo  ? Must  we,  that  carry  tidings  of  great  joy  to 
every  people,  be  messengers  of  ruin  to  thee  ? ” We 
now  know  that  Waterloos  mean  ruin  to  all. 

Very  early  in  the  life  of  the  child  we  begin  to  indoc- 
trinate him  with  the  military  idea.  While  yet  he  lies  in 
the  cradle,  we  not  improbably  stuff  into  his  hand  some 
warlike  effigy,  whose  fierce  aspect  and  gaudy  coloring 
may  arrest  his  attention  and  silence  his  cries.  The  nur- 
sery is  invaded  by  hosts  of  toy  soldiers,  toy  weapons, 
toy  battle  scenes  ; and  the  thoughts  of  mere  infancy  are 
directed  to  subjects  which  give  him  immense  delight 
though  he  cannot  understand  them,  and  which  are,  on 
that  account,  more  likely  to  create  those  immovable 
prejudices  which  most  strongly  buttress  the  war  system. 
The  wooden  war  horse  merely  anticipates  the  charger ; 
the  tin  sword,  the  steel  that  lets  out  the  soul  ; the  toy 
cannon,  the  devilish  enginery  of  maxims,  pompoms, 
lyddite  shells ; the  leaden  regiment,  the  battalions, 
corps,  earth-shaking  armies  of  the  future ; and  it  is  by 
playing  the  game  mirthfully  on  the  nursery  floor  that 
he  is  trained  to  play  it  murderously  on  the  red  field. 
The  miniature  soldier  slays  imaginary  foes,  whilst  the 
little  general  in  petticoats  disposes  the  order  of  the 
battle  and  thus  develops  those  sentiments  which  make 
future  conflicts  inevitable.  In  times  of  actual  collision 
this  demoralization  of  the  child  proceeds  with  the  same 
fatal  momentum  that  is  displayed  in  other  spheres  of 
national  character.  It  is  not  only  the  government  that 
declares  war,  but  the  nursery,  whose  occupants  catch 


84 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


the  war  fever  in  a form  extraordinarily  virulent  for 
creatures  so  small,  and  display  wonderful  sharpness  in 
picking  up  scraps  of  war  news  from  papa’s  newspaper 
comments  across  the  breakfast  table,  and  derive  ardor 
and  encouragement  from  mamma’s  smiles  at  their 
patriotic  zeal  in  slaying  the  imaginary  foe.  In  view  of 
the  stakes  involved  by  the  actual  clash  of  nations,  all 
this  may  seem  merely  amusing  to  the  unwakened  mind  ; 
for  on  this  question  our  social  ethic  is  in  much  the 
same  stage  as  it  was  two  generations  ago  on  the  drink 
question,  when  foolish  parents  smiled  admiringly  upon 
the  young  hopeful  who  could  take  off  his  glass  of  wine 
like  a man.  But  no  ethicist  can  view  the  warrior  child 
as  other  than  a portent,  full  of  menace  to  the  citizen- 
ship of  the  future,  whose  very  games  react  upon  his 
moral  character.  The  thoughtless  may  smile  at  the 
suggestion,  the  hardened  sneer,  the  wicked  openly 
scoff ; but  all  who  reflect  upon  the  plastic  nature  of 
childhood  and  the  terrible  fascinations  of  soldiering 
will  readily  admit  the  intimate  connection  between  the 
nursery  and  the  field  of  battle. 

Turning  his  back  upon  the  nursery,  the  child  is  next 
introduced  to  the  school,  where  he  receives  a more 
thorough  indoctrination  in  martial  arts  and  sentiments. 
The  same  spirit  that  demoralizes  a nation  and  desecrates 
the  foster  ground  of  infant  innocence  frequently  per- 
vades the  schoolroom  also,  and  sets  the  old-time  brute 
to  ravin  at  the  evolving  angel  in  the  character  of  the 
child.  The  foul  vapors  from  the  field  where  manhood 
is  being  destroyed  penetrate  even  to  the  temples  where 
childhood  is  being  reared,  and  the  young  humanity, 


TO  THE  CHILD 


85 


which  was  designed  to  take  tone  and  color  from  the 
clear  airs  of  innocence  and  love,  must  thenceforth  droop 
and  darken.  The  parent  is,  perhaps,  indifferent  to  the 
character  of  the  school  attended  by  his  child ; or  is 
himself  infected  with  the  war  fever,  and  willing  that  his 
child’s  mind  should  be  poisoned  by  the  “ patriotism  ” of 
the  hour.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  he  deplores  this  state 
of  affairs  and  desires  to  protect  the  moral  nature  of  his 
offspring,  he  is  forced  to  confine  his  efforts  to  the  coun- 
teracting influences  of  home,  for  he  knows  that,  if  he 
were  to  make  formal  and  public  protest,  “patriotic” 
teachers  would  make  it  unpleasant  for  his  children, 
“patriotic”  pupils  would  subject  them  to  petty  perse- 
cution, and  “ patriotic  ” school  boards  would  make  light 
of  all  his  complaints.  Hence  the  “patriotic”  school- 
master has  it  all  his  own  way,  with  appalling  results. 
Though  there  are  honorable  exceptions,  and  though  the 
codes  present  some  barriers  to  the  incoming,  flood,  it  is 
not  uncommon  for  a teacher  to  neglect  the  usual  sub- 
jects in  order  to  declaim  on  the  passing  incidents  of  the 
campaign,  to  forsake  the  settled  findings  of  history  in 
order  to  dilate  upon  the  distorted  and  ephemeral  bul- 
letins from  the  front.  Study  of  historical  character  is 
replaced  by  newspaper  sketches  of  the  generals  in  the 
field,  who  are  represented  as  immaculate  and  heroic  lead- 
ers of  armies  the  most  heroic  and  immaculate  in  the 
world,  whilst  at  the  same  time  the  enemy  is  subjected 
to  every  kind  of  abuse.  Essays  which  ought  to  be  pre- 
scribed upon  the  nobler  themes  of  literature  or  history 
are  directed  to  the  sieges,  reliefs,  marches,  retreats,  vic- 
tories, defeats  of  the  campaign,  the  respective  characters 


86 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


of  the  combatants,  their  habits  in  peace  and  war; 
whilst  opportunities  are  given  to  indulge  the  foulest 
misrepresentations  retailed  by  a reptile  press  which 
has,  for  the  time,  become  the  text-book  of  the  semina- 
ries of  learning.  Even  the  deaf  mute,  in  whatever  way 
his  pitiful  symbols  admit,  may  be  stuffed  with  the  per- 
versions that  form  the  stock  in  trade  of  the  “ patriotic  ” 
instructor’s  contemporary  annals.1 

Were  their  effects  upon  the  morals  of  youth  less 
disastrous,  some  amusement  might  be  extracted  from 
the  eccentricities  of  the  scholastic  profession  acting  un- 
der the  bias  of  patriotism.  One  instructs  his  class  in 
drawing  caricatures  of  the  enemy  ; another  gives  object 
lessons  upon  the  cowardly  and  ineffective  methods  of 
warfare  falsely  alleged  against  them  ; a third  quenches 
his  thirst  from  a cup  having  the  enemy’s  effigy  on 
one  side,  which,  being  kept  carefully  next  the  class,  is, 
according  to  order,  duly  howled  at ; whilst  an  inspector 
regales  a public  meeting  with  the  pitiful  spite  he  has 
taught  an  innocent  child  to  set  down  in  its  essay.2 

Their  very  songs  are  changed  into  hymns  of  battle. 
Whereas  formerly  young  voices  were  tunefully  raised 
to  sing  of  home  and  nature,  of  love  and  peace,  of  inno- 
cent joys  by  stream  and  meadow,  war  time  finds  them 
exercised  in  songs  of  the  camp  and  the  red  field,  of 
revenge  and  blood,  of  the  bayonet  thrust  and  the  cav- 
alry charge ; the  ballads  of  battle  which  time  and 
the  glamour  of  genius  have  made  classic  are  pressed 
into  the  feverish  and  excited  patriotism  of  the  hour, 
and  even  the  ephemeral  trash  of  the  music  halls  is  not 
counted  beneath  the  dignity  of  the  musical  lesson  in  a 


TO  THE  CHILD 


87 


seminary  of  learning.3  In  a divine  ecstasy  of  “ patriot- 
ism ” one  even  turns  a sacred  song  into  a hymn  of 
praise  to  the  generals  in  the  field,  and  is  not  afraid.4 

A time  of  war  is  a time  of  reaction,  of  relapse  to 
the  ideals  of  lower  ages,  and  hence  it  finds  a nation’s 
schoolmasters  instilling  a narrow  and  antiquated  thing 
called  “ patriotism  ” into  their  pupils,  instead  of  those 
fraternal  and  cosmopolitan  principles  which  ought  to 
characterize  an  age  of  universal  travel,  missions,  and 
commerce.  Children  are  told  that  it  is  base  to  think 
their  country  might  be  wrong,  treacherous  to  disagree 
with  the  quarrels  of  their  government  and  to  wish  them 
failure  in  securing  the  triumph  of  injustice,  cowardly 
to  grieve  when  the  soldiers  of  their  country  have  suc- 
ceeded in  killing  a large  number  of  those  engaged 
in  defending  the  just  and  right.  The  machinery  of 
education  can  even,  in  the  hands  of  the  unformed  in- 
structor, become  an  instrument  of  terrorization  and  per- 
secution. Thus,  a “patriotic”  teacher  asks  an  infant 
class  whether  any  entertains  sentiments  friendly  to  the 
enemy,  and  upon  two  of  them  confessing  to  that  crime, 
proceeds  to  rate  them  soundly  for  disloyalty  to  their 
country,  and  to  bully  them  into  recanting.  In  a higher 
grade  school  two  girls  are  set  tasks  for  no  other  fault 
than  confessing  to  similar  sentiments,  and,  by  direct 
incitement  of  the  teacher,  are  hectored  for  days  about 
the  playground,  their  persecution  terminating  only 
when  a school  manager,  hearing  of  the  affair,  calls  at 
the  school.  Another  War-Office  sprout  masquerading 
with  a teacher’s  diploma  causes  the  children  to  march, 
two  by  two,  past  the  Union  Jack,  doing  reverence  as 


88 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


they  pass,  and  when  some  refuse,  rails  upon  them  for 
disgraceful  behavior.5  The  inspector  backs  the  master, 
the  master  the  assistant,  and  a military  government 
backs  them  all.  If  a former  pupil  has  signalized  himself 
in  battle,  he  will  be  held  up  to  the  school  as  a proud 
example,  and  his  name  writ  large  on  the  distinction 
board  ; if  a bugle  boy  has,  haply,  shot  three  of  the 
enemy  with  his  own  hand,  the  scholars  will  be  encour- 
aged to  get  up  a subscription  in  order  to  present 
the  little  homicide  with  a watch.6  It  is  thus  that  the 
poison  spring  of  militarism  takes  its  rise  in  the  school, 
and  the  academies  of  learning  are  perverted  into  a 
means  of  corruption.  Thus  culture  turns  to  cruelty, 
education  to  demoralization ; reason  is  ingulfed  in 
frenzy,  and  ethics  in  passion  ; and  a government  which 
at  one  time  controlled  the  army  alone,  leaving  the 
church  to  control  the  school,  finds  new  cause  to  bless 
the  day  it  was  driven  by  zealous  educationists  to  con- 
trol the  school  also. 

It  is  the  history  lesson,  however,  which  gives  the 
war-smitten  pedagogue  his  greatest  opportunity,  and  is 
even  more  mischievous  than  the  irregular  excursions 
just  described,  since  its  place  is  permanent  and  of  great 
honor.  The  approved  methods  of  writing  and  teaching 
history  are  much  to  blame  for  the  low  ethical  ground 
permanently  occupied  by  Christendom.  Certain  half- 
playful traits  of  schoolboy  character  assume  a new 
gravity  to  those  who  have  seen  them  worked  out  into 
the  developed  passions  of  a time  of  war.  Boyish  boast- 
fulness has  never  been  esteemed  a serious  fault,  except 
when  it  evolved  into  its  natural  fruits  of  bullying ; but 


TO  THE  CHILD 


89 


it  is  becoming  clearer  that  it  may  have  fruits  yet  more 
baleful  in  the  man’s  bloodthirstiness,  especially  when 
watered  by  the  history  lesson.  Even  the  moralist  may 
have  been  disposed  to  smile  upon  the  notorious  patriot- 
ism of  the  schoolboy  as  a harmless  vanity,  but  he  is 
now  coming  to  see  that,  encouraged  by  the  master’s 
comment  upon  history,  it  may  be  the  parent  of  that 
martial  zeal  which  at  once  demoralizes  the  individual 
and  endangers  the  peace  of  nations  ; and,  at  the  risk  of 
being  thought  a moral  pedant,  he  is  compelled  to  ask 
whether  it  is  any  longer  necessary  to  deliberately  cor- 
rupt childhood  for  the  sake  of  a fancied  security  to  the 
nation.  So  far  from  rebuking  any  display  of  national 
vanity  in  his  bellicose  pupils,  the  master  too  often  en- 
courages it,  not  knowing,  or  not  caring,  that  he  may 
destroy  the  habit  of  the  student  by  grafting  on  to  it 
the  temper  of  the  jingo.  It  has  been  said  that  the 
youth  of  Germany  were  prepared  for  war  with  France 
by  a course  of  training  continued  through  many  relays 
of  school  children,7  and  it  will  be  to  the  eternal  renown 
of  the  French  instructors  if,  instead  of  preparing  young 
France  for  a renewal  of  the  conflict,  they  — as  seems 
indeed  to  be  the  case  — instruct  the  rising  generations 
in  the  principles  and  advantages  of  peace.  Thus  the 
historian  prepares  the  way  for  the  general,  the  peda- 
gogue for  the  warrior ; and  once  more  is  illustrated  the 
universal  law  that  the  idea  creates  the  deed,  that  the 
mind  has  to  be  corrupted  before  the  members  can  com- 
mit sin.  In  the  very  nature  of  the  case,  schools  and 
schoolmasters  should  busy  themselves  creating  preju- 
dices in  favor  of  peace  rather  than  strife  ; of  reason, 


9o 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


love,  moral  suasion,  rather  than  aggression,  intoler- 
ance, and  force;  and  this,  except  under  the  influence  of 
militarism,  would  be  generally  conceded.  But  the  per- 
verting power  of  militarism  has  been  great  enough  to 
turn  the  history  book  into  a laudation  of  battles  and 
battle  makers,  exaggerating  the  benefits  of  war  and 
misrepresenting  its  effects  upon  the  characters  of  the 
combatants.8  For  one  page  devoted  to  the  peaceful 
triumphs  of  the  explorer  and  the  philanthropist,  a 
hundred  have  been  given  to  the  faded  exploits  of  the 
military  conqueror,  encouraging  the  young  in  the  delu- 
sion that  no  career  is  so  glorious  as  his  and  no  position 
in  a nation’s  life  so  honorable.  Among  sixty-three  lan- 
tern slides  issued  to  illustrate  the  romance  of  a reign, 
the  London  School  Board  included  twenty-three  royal 
and  fifteen  military  subjects  ; no  portraits  of  David 
Livingstone,  John  Ruskin,  or  Lord  Shaftesbury  ; but 
Cecil  Rhodes,  in  company  with  Roberts,  Kitchener, 
Napoleon,  and  similar  men  of  war.9 

A change  for  the  better  is,  no  doubt,  coming  over 
the  writing  of  history,  but  the  process  requires  to  be 
hastened.  A nation’s  annals  should  embrace  more 
than  the  crimes  of  its  kings  and  the  rebellions  of  its 
aspiring  nobles  ; and  if  they  must  include  instances  of 
manslaying,  it  should  be  in  order  to  reprobate  instead 
of  glorifying  them,  to  turn  the  manslayer  into  the 
villain  instead  of  the  hero  of  the  human  tragedy.  After 
four  centuries  it  should  now  be  possible  to  emulate 
Erasmus,  that  prince  of  humanists,  who,  when  institut- 
ing a course  of  instruction  in  Christian  principles,  set 
aside  the  panegyrists  of  Achilles  and  Caesar,  — whom 


TO  THE  CHILD 


91 


he  described  as  mere  “raging  brigands,”  — reserving 
them  for  very  special  uses,  remarking  that  such  histories 
might  be  injurious  in  the  highest  degree.  The  “ heroes” 
must  now  be  plainly  described  as  anachronisms  — in 
plain  language,  “back  numbers  ” in  the  story  of  human 
progress.  History  must  be  rewritten  from  the  stand- 
point of  humanity.  The  prejudices  which  lead  to  admi- 
ration of  bloody  deeds  must  be  extirpated.  Teachers, 
mothers,  and  all  those  who  make  first  impressions  on 
childhood,  must  impress  hate  of  war,  and  a sense  of  the 
value  and  dignity  of  human  nature  and  life.  In  propor- 
tion as  history  is  written  from  the  religious  and  humani- 
tarian standpoint,  instead  of  the  pagan  and  patriotic 
one,  it  will  become  a record  of  the  growth  of  human- 
ity in  the  arts  of  peace  ; and  it  will  be  the  aim  of  such 
writers  to  trace  the  approach  of  nations  to  their  moral 
ideals  through  every  stage  of  advance,  reaction,  frus- 
tration, and  renewal.  It  would  then  be  considered 
infamous  to  teach  a child  to  despise  life  when  it  was 
incarnate  in  an  “ enemy,”  and  alone  noble  to  enjoin 
reverence  for  all  human  beings.  The  human  types  held 
up  before  the  mind  of  generous  and  aspiring  youth 
would  be  those  of  the  saviors,  not  destroyers,  of  their 
kind, — the  antique  sage  and  modern  inventor,  the  saint 
of  old  and  altruist  of  to-day,  the  prophets,  apostles,  and 
martyrs  of  the  formative  periods,  and  the  reformers, 
philanthropists,  slum  workers,  explorers,  and  living 
martyrs  of  the  age  we  live  in.  No  longer  called  upon 
to  admire  the  “sum  of  all  villainies,”  they  would  give 
their  minds  to  the  contemplation  of  humanity  and 
goodness  ; would  learn  to  put  the  virtuous  who  retain 


92 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


their  virtue  amid  every  inducement  to  vice  far  above  him 
who  merely  displays  brute  courage  against  odds  which 
might  tempt  him  to  cowardice ; would  no  longer  emu- 
late the  fighter  who  saves  his  life  by  taking  bis  brother’s, 
but  the  workman  who  nobly  dies  to  save  a mate  from 
danger,  or  manfully  plies  his  tool  to  minister  to  the 
comfort  and  well-being  of  society ; and,  if  they  were 
called  upon  ter  choose,  would  push  past  the  Tamerlanes 
and  Caesars  of  the  history  books,  to  range  themselves 
with  those  moral  heroes  who  counted  not  their  lives 
dear  unto  them,  if  they  could  by  any  means  save  some. 

If  we  reflect  upon  the  contradictory  nature  of  the 
instruction  which — in  order  to  placate  the  military  spirit 
— we  impart  to  our  children,  the  degradation  it  implies 
will  become  more  apparent.  Whether  by  reasoned  com- 
ments on  history  or  excited  diatribes  on  contemporary 
combats,  children  are  taught  to  abandon  all  the  prin- 
ciples fostered  by  their  other  studies,  to  unsay  the 
moral  precepts  they  have  been  taught  to  apply  to  every 
other  subject,  and  to  accept  the  crude,  abnormal,  and 
inhuman  theories  of  morals  that  come  to  the  surface 
in  such  disordered  times.  In  one  class  they  are  en- 
couraged to  rely  on  moral  power,  in  another  to  exalt 
brute  force  ; one  subject  stirs  the  aspiring  angel  within 
them,  another  tramples  him  beneath  the  hoof  of  the 
brute  ; so  that  a coherent  system  of  morals  and  a char- 
acter harmonious  with  itself  become  impossible. 

The  conflict  in  the  child’s  spirit  becomes  even  more 
harmful  if  his  parents  chance  to  hold  opinions  antag- 
onistic to  the  military  system  and  to  whatever  martial 


TO  THE  CHILD 


93 


frenzy  happens  to  have  run  off  with  the  sense  and 
morality  of  the  nation ; for  he  will  be  compelled  to 
receive  instruction  contrary  to  that  which  he  receives 
at  home ; to  hear  those  principles  praised  which  his 
mother  has  taught  him  to  abhor,  or  those  sentiments 
insulted  which  his  father  commands  him  to  reverence. 
What  could  be  more  hurtful  than  to  introduce  into  the 
tender  mind  of  childhood  this  discord  between  home 
and  school,  parent  and  teacher — nay,  between  class  and 
class,  book  and  book,  subject  and  subject  ? Could  any- 
thing be  more  exquisitely  contrived  to  destroy  the  very 
foundations  of  faith  than  a hopeless  schism  in  a child’s 
mind,  a conflict  between  ideals,  a clash  of  authorities  ? 
It  is  here  that  the  war  demon  produces  demoralization 
more  swift,  subtle,  and  complete  than  in  any  other 
sphere ; for  though  scenes  of  blood  on  the  field  or 
debauch  in  the  street  may  exceed  it  in  open  and  pal- 
pable disgust,  the  spectacle  of  an  enormous  number 
of  men  and  women  throughout  the  country  engaged, 
day  after  day,  in  assiduously  poisoning  the  wellheads  of 
humanity  is  one  of  the  most  dreadful  that  can  afflict 
the  thoughtful  mind. 

The  ethical  spirit  of  the  modern  world  is  increasingly 
offended  by  the  prevalence  of  that  dual  morality  which 
has  one  law  for  the  individual  and  another  for  the 
community  ; one  doctrine  for  the  church  and  another 
for  the  senate;  one  set  of  principles  for  a time  of 
peace,  and  quite  a different  set  for  a time  of  war.  But 
the  demand  for  a harmonious  and  coherent  ethic  would 
become  importunate  if  it  could  bear  in  upon  the  public 
mind  a sense  of  the  disastrous  effect  of  militarism  upon 


94 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


child  morals.  The  citizen  who  carries,  with  growing 
discomfort,  two  Sinais  in  different  departments  of  his 
mind  — or,  to  speak  more  correctly,  a Sinai  in  one 
department  and  a Calvary  in  another  — would  hasten 
to  shape  his  ethic  into  a consistent  unity  if  he  realized 
that  he  was  splitting  childhood  into  two  halves  ; giving 
one  part  to  Cain  and  another  to  Christ  ; printing  the 
Lex  Talionis  upon  one  lobe  of  the  brain  and  the  Golden 
Rule  upon  another  ; forcing  the  half-conscious  soul  of 
innocence  into  an  uneasy  feeling  that  it  has  to  choose 
between  its  Old  and  its  New  Testament,  — between 
Joshua  and  Jesus,  — or,  somehow,  to  reconcile  them. 
This  fatal  duplicity  is  encouraged  by  the  schoolmaster 
when  he  gustfully  details  incidents  involving  successful 
stratagem,  spying,  ambush,  and  similar  arts  of  legiti- 
mate warfare  ; for  the  children  soon  begin  to  suspect 
that  they  are  not  to  apply  to  this  business  the  same 
rules  they  have  been  taught  to  apply  to  their  personal 
conduct.  When  they  grow  older  they  may  perchance 
read  from  the  pen  of  a Commander-in-Chief 10  that 
while  the  mottoes,  “Honesty  is  the  best  policy,”  and 
“Truth  always  wins  in  the  long  run,”  formed  very 
pretty  headlines  for  their  copy  books,  it  is  a mistake  to 
“ keep  hammering  along  ” with  them,  for  they  have  no 
place  in  the  career  of  a soldier  ; and  they  may  be  tempted 
to  argue,  in  a vague  kind  of  fashion,  that  everything 
they  wrote  in  their  copy  books  is  open  to  the  same 
repudiation,  and  hence  to  conclude  that  chastity,  jus- 
tice, truth-speaking,  mercy,  commercial  integrity,  are 
equally,  under  special  conditions,  subject  to  suspension 
or  repeal.  It  is  thus  that  we  introduce  that  fatal  schism 


TO  THE  CHILD 


95 


into  child  nature  which  inevitably  tends  to  the  produc- 
tion of  hypocrites  and  liars.  Infinitely  nobler  was  the 
frank  heterodoxy  of  the  barbarian  fourth-century  bishop, 
Ulfilas,  who,  when  translating  the  Bible  into  Gothic, 
left  out  the  Book  of  Kings,  lest  the  story  of  the  Jewish 
wars  should  yet  further  inflame  the  too  combative 
temper  of  his  flock.  Similar  orthodoxy  of  heart  was 
displayed  by  Erasmus  (to  quote  the  father  of  the  Ref- 
ormation again)  when  he  selected  only  certain  portions 
of  the  same  literature  for  the  instruction  of  youth, 
stipulating  that  even  these  should  be  interpreted  in 
their  allegorical  sense.  If  we  teach  our  children  two 
contradictory  codes  of  morality,  how  are  they  to  decide 
which  to  follow,  or  when  to  follow  one  rather  than  the 
other  ? Will  they  not  be  likely  to  choose  that  which  is 
more  convenient  and  profitable  ? Will  they  not  learn 
to  put  expediency  before  principle?  Will' they  not 
feel,  in  their  own  youthful  way,  that  religion  is  merely 
a thing  to  be  preached  and  prayed  about,  but  not  to 
be  practiced  unless  when  convenient  ? Could  anything 
more  ruinous  to  the  moral  nature  of  childhood  be  de- 
vised than  this  hopeless  inconsistency  ? Are  we  not, 
for  the  sake  of  imagined  political  good,  plunging  our 
children  into  the  slimy  and  noisome  pit  of  cant,  hum- 
bug, and  hypocrisy  ? 

That  pedagogue  who  should  be  discovered  inculcat- 
ing the  principles  of  intellectual  atheism  into  his  pupils 
would  be  universally  condemned  and  summarily  dis- 
missed from  a position  he  had  disgraced,  for  it  would 
be  counted  a thing  monstrous  and  unnatural  to  de- 
liberately undermine  the  religious  faith  of  an  innocent 


9 6 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


and  unsuspecting  child.  But  is  it  any  nobler  to  steadily 
sap  a child’s  faith  in  morality,  truthfulness,  consist- 
ency, in  the  obligations  of  the  higher  nature  and  the 
imperative  duty  of  obeying  Christ  ? And  is  not  this 
what  we  do  when  we  teach  that  under  other  conditions 
it  is  right  to  kill,  lie,  steal,  boast,  glory  in  slaughter  and 
rejoice  over  suffering,  trample  down  harvests,  burn  up 
homes,  make  other  children  fatherless  and  the  mothers 
of  other  children  widows  ? Is  not  this  to  sap  the  very 
bases  of  humanity  ? Does  not  this  filter  the  very  quint- 
essence of  immorality  into  the  inner  soul  of  childhood  ? 
Must  not  this  nourish  a moral  atheism  compared  with 
whose  active  venom  intellectual  unbelief  is  only  a dry 
husk — a meaningless,  inoperative  shell?  Supposing 
it  were  possible  to  teach  a child  not  to  believe  in  God, 
but  to  believe  in  truth,  honor,  mercy,  brotherhood, 
love  (it  may  be  impossible ; we  cannot  here  discuss 
whether  it  be  possible),  would  not  that  be  more  profit- 
able than  to  successfully  teach  him  to  believe  in  God 
while  disbelieving  in  all  those  moral  qualities  which 
faith  pronounces  peculiarly  godlike  ? Without  saying 
whether  it  would  be  feasible  to  compass  the  first  of 
these  ends,  it  is  certain  that  we  are  triumphantly 
achieving  the  second.  The  gentle  author  of  the  Songs 
of  Innocence  testifies  against  us  : 


|S 


He  who  mocks  the  infant’s  faith 
Shall  be  mocked  in  age  and  death  ; 

He  who  shall  teach  the  child  to  doubt, 
The  rotten  grave  shall  ne’er  get  out  ; 
He  who  respects  the  infant’s  faith 
Triumphs  over  hell  and  death. 


TO  THE  CHILD 


97 


The  vast  corruption  of  child  character  wrought  by 
militarism  through  the  school  has,  in  these  latter  days, 
led  to  a further  and,  to  some  minds,  more  obvious  evil 
by  preparing  the  way  of  the  recruiting  sergeant  and 
displaying  new  fields  for  his  energy.  The  school  has 
become  not  only  a training  ground  but  actually  a re- 
cruiting ground  for  the  army.  The  British  War  Office 
issues  a circular  pressing  secondary  schools  to  teach 
boys  over  twelve  the  use  of  the  rifle  ; issues  Morris- 
tube  carbines  to  schools  having  suitable  ranges  ; and 
supplies  ammunition  at  cost  price.11  The  inevitable 
next  step  is  the  formation  of  cadet  corps  in  schools, 
with  inspection  by  military  chiefs  who  announce  that 
they  are  there  “ to  see  what  these  might  become  in  the 
future  as  the  fighting  and  defending  material  of  their 
race.”  12  And  the  inevitable  step  into  the  gulf  may  be 
inferred  from  a single  Reuter:  “A  most  unfortunate 
incident  occurred  last  week  at  Kasr  El  Nil  barracks, 
a boy  bugler,  who  was  unpopular  with  the  other  boys 
of  the  Rifle  Brigade,  being  maltreated  by  them  to  such 
an  extent  that  he  died.”13  Not  only  does  the  peda-  ) 
gogue  instill  the  principles  of  militarism  into  his  pupils, 
but  he  does  it,  and  knows  that  he  does  it,  with  the 
entire  consent  of  school  boards,  clerical  managers,  and 
a despotic  education  department,  who  all  find  in  the 
tax-supported  school  a new  opportunity  for  developing 
the  military  resources  of  the  nation. 

The  friends  of  democracy  and  popular  education  have 
good  reason  to  bewail  this  unexpected  result  of  their 
splendid  struggle  for  universal  state-aided  and  state- 
directed  schools.  The  capture  of  the  schools  by  the 


98 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


soldier  is  one  of  the  most  ominous  signs  of  the  times. 
The  militarist  has  long  looked  with  wistful  eye  at  this 
happy  hunting  ground;  but  the  conditions  were  not 
entirely  favorable  till  government,  by  its  power  to  give 
or  withhold  grants,  to  prescribe  the  code  and  dictate 
subjects  of  study,  made  its  control  of  the  schools  abso- 
lute ; and  the  growth  of  the  “ imperial  ” idea  has  made 
popularly  elected  boards  and  clerical  managers  alike 
willing  to  submit  to  whatever  demands  the  Education 
Department  may  make.  The  Scottish  Department 
has  announced  that  its  grant  shall  be  made  subject 
to  effective  physical  training  understood  in  the  mil- 
itary sense ; masters  are  encouraged  to  form  cadet 
corps,  and  to  put  up  distinction  boards  upon  which 
the  glories  of  their  soldier  pupils  may  be  blazoned. 
Parliaments  have  already  been  strongly  urged  to  make 
military  drill  compulsory  in  all  public  schools,  though 
they  have  hitherto  refused  to  occupy  that  halfway 
house  to  conscription.  The  triumph  of  the  soldier  is 
not  yet  complete,  but  it  promises  well ; and,  whereas 
the  friends  of  popular  education  were  wont  to  strive 
to  make  a path  straight  from  the  common  school  to 
the  University,  they  have  incidentally  succeeded  in 
making  one  from  the  school  to  the  army.  Thus  does 
the  enemy  evermore  sow  tares,  and  a demon  shadows 
every  angel.  The  young  idea  is  now,  in  different  senses, 
to  be  taught  to  shoot.  Even  the  play  hour  is  to  be 
exploited  in  the  interests  of  Moloch,  and  such  childish 
games  as  “I  spy,”  “French  and  English,”  and  “Pris- 
oner’s Base  ” (which  are  old  war  games  of  scouting, 
capture,  and  recapture)  are  to  be  “ adapted  to  the 


TO  THE  CHILD 


99 


necessities  of  modern  warfare,”  and  “all  children  ” are 
to  be  “ taught  at  school,  partly  in  play  and  partly  as 
work,  how  to  handle  a gun,  how  to  shoot,  and  how  to 
maneuver.”  14  The  consequences  of  such  educational 
ideas  are  so  obvious  that  an  American  fighting  man 
can  state  them  : “ If  we  are  pugnacious,  it  is  natural. 
The  ram  is  a very  pretty  little  animal,  but  the  farmers 
say  that  if  you  put  one  in  the  field  where  there  is  noth- 
ing else  for  him  to  butt,  he  will  butt  a stump,  because 
it  is  his  nature  to.  Now,  it  is  as  natural  for  an  Amer-  / 
ican  boy  to  butt  a stump  as  it  is  for  a ram.  The 
way  we  are  educated,  you  must  not  be  surprised  if  we 
occasionally  look  for  stumps.”  15  The  scholar  is  being 
rapidly  transformed  into  the  conscript.  Mind  will  be 
more  and  more  subordinated  to  muscle,  industrial  to 
military  training,  the  book  to  the  bayonet,  moral  dis- 
cipline to  the  mechanical  rules  of  the  martinet,  cul- 
ture of  the  higher  nature  to  physical  equipment,  and 
service  in  the  spheres  of  citizenship  to  success  on 
the  field  of  battle. 

The  belligerent  principles  indoctrinated  by  the 
teacher  of  the  tax-supported  school  are  abundantly 
watered  by  the  keeper  of  the  rate-supported  library, 
who,  when  the  war  fever  rages,  cannot  do  other  than 
stock  his  shelves  with  the  printed  stuff  that  then  takes 
the  place  of  literature  and  is  greedily  sought  after 
by  the  ratepayers.  Here  also  the  friends  of  popular 
culture  have  some  reason  for  disappointment ; for  it 
turns  out,  after  trial,  that  an  institution  supported  by 
public  funds  is  under  the  necessity  of  conforming  to  f 
public  taste,  even  when  it  tends  to  savagery,  and  may 


IOO 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


thus  become  an  instrument  of  demoralization  instead 
of  reform.  A time  of  war  reduces  the  sale  on  good 
literature,  and  so  diminishes  the  profits  that  respect- 
able publishers  are  tempted  to  cater  for  the  blood- 
. poisoned  appetite.16  The  public  librarian  is  obliged  to 
continue  the  work  begun  by  the  pedagogue  ; to  stock 
his  magazine  room  with  the  pictorials  which,  through 
every  grade  of  the  publishing  world,  nourish  the  blood 
lust  in  thousands  of  gloating  lads  ; and  to  load  the 
lending  department  with  the  volumes  which  are  rushed 
out  from  the  red  press  with  the  double  object  of  satis- 
fying the  public  hunger  for  horrors  and  the  printers’ 
hunger  for  bread.  A glance  at  the  new  books  piled  on 
the  shelves  in  war  time  will  show  with  what  haste  and  in- 
genuity writers  and  publishers  conspire  to  stuff  the  pub- 
lic with  the  blood  literature  they  crave  for,  embracing 
not  only  stories  of  the  sieges,  stratagems,  retreats,  vic- 
tories, romances,  legends,  and  lies  of  the  campaign 
actually  in  progress,  but  tales  raked  up  from  every  blood- 
stained page  of  antiquity  and  tradition.  Once  again  the 
demon  shadows  the  angel. 

The  inevitable  result  of  this  combination  of  demor- 
alizing forces  in  nursery,  school,  and  library,  is  not 
left  to  speculation,  but  is  attested  by  facts  patent  to 
all.  An  ethicist  here  traces  the  responsibility  back  to 
certain  causes  existing  in  our  institutions  for  youthful 
culture,  and  the  statistician  and  man  of  affairs  tabulates  , 
the  facts  — explain  them  otherwise  who  may.  Every 
outburst  of  military  energy  is  followed  by  an  increase 
of  crimes  of  violence,  which  is  never  so  discreditable  as 
when  it  exhibits  itself  as  “juvenile  crime”  committed 


TO  THE  CHILD 


IOI 


by  “young  offenders”  between  school  age  and  re- 
sponsible manhood  — unless  when  it  is  condoned  and 
commended  by  those  who  were  set  to  condemn  and 
reform  it.17  Men  cannot  grow  figs  of  thistles ; and  if 
we  deliberately  train  our  youth  in  principles  of  vio- 
lence we  must  not  be  surprised  to  see  them  perform 
violent  deeds.  We  cannot  make  silk  of  bristles  ; and 
if  we  permit  intolerant  teachers  to  foster  a persecuting 
spirit  in  their  pupils  we  need  not  wonder  if,  when  the 
pupils  are  older,  they  ignore  the  distinction  between 
personal  and  patriotic,  and,  since  they  began  to  be 
persecutors  for  their  country’s  sake,  end  in  becoming 
criminals  for  their  own. 

From  this  common  apostasy  of  all  the  institutions 
charged  with  the  general  education  of  the  young,  we 
naturally  turn  to  the  church,  on  account  of  its  sup- 
posed devotion  to  moral  principles  and  its  specializa- 
tion of  the  religious  training  of  the  young — only  to  find, 
however,  that  she  is  engaged  in  assisting  the  degen- 
erate forces.  Within  the  temple  of  peace  we  find  an 
altar  erected  to  Moloch.  The  church  has,  under  the 
name  of  “Boys’  Brigades,”  instituted  a wing  of  the 
army,  a training  ground  for  young  soldiers,  and  a 
recruiting  ground  for  the  drill  sergeant.  Under  the 
plea  of  discipline  and  obedience  she  gathers  them 
into  mimic  corps,  decks  them  off  in  fragments  of 
uniform,  puts  dummy  guns  into  their  hands,  summons 
them  by  sound  of  bugle,  sets  a retired  soldier  to  drill 
them,  brings  generals  to  address  them  and  give  them 
prizes  — and  then  clears  her  throat  to  deny  that  she 
is  preparing  them  as  food  for  the  rapacious  maw  of  the 


102 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


military  Moloch  ! Than  this  compromise  with  the 
army,  this  union  between  ecclesiasticism  and  mili- 
tarism, the  church,  in  all  the  long  catalogue  of  her 
adulteries,  never  committed  a more  gross  and  abomin- 
able act  of  fornication  with  the  powers  of  this  world. 

Whither,  then,  shall  we  turn  amid  this  falling  away 
of  the  moral  institutions  ? Who  is  to  be  the  savior  of 
the  child  ? The  answer  is,  the  being  who  bore  the 
child.  Women,  as  Ruskin  told  them  in  the  closing 
passages  of  The  Crown  of  Wild  Olive , have  the  thing 
so  absolutely  in  their  own  hands  that  they  could  stop 
any  war  in  a week  by  the  simple  device  of  going  into 
dead  mourning,  unrelieved  by  jewel,  ornament,  or  any 
trivial  lapse  into  prettiness.  How  would  it  be  if, 
in  their  quiet  yet  determined  way,  they  intimated 
that  they  would  leave  off  nursing  unless  the  men  left 
off  fighting,  and  refused  to  minister  in  the  hospital 
if  men  persisted  in  warring  in  the  field  ? Woman  has 
long  enough  stooped  to  be  servant  to  the  stupidity) 
and  minister  to  the  inhumanity,  of  man.  The  age 
calls  upon  her  to  take  her  place  at  last  in  the  fore- 
front of  the  emancipating  powers.  If  she  is  not  yet  pre- 
pared to  stand  upon  Ruskin’s  terms,  she  can  at  least  be 
true  to  her  higher  nature,  declining  to  be  mere  echo 
to  man’s  lower  voice,  and  bottleholder  to  his  brutal 
combats.  She  must  not  abdicate  her  functions  in  the 
old  abject  way  — like  those  political  apprentices  who, 
at  a Women’s  Political  Association,  refused  to  touch 
a question  of  peace,  on  the  ground  that  their  men  had 
already  decided  for  war  ! The  rough  work  of  the  world 


TO  THE  CHILD 


103 


has,  let  us  say,  been  done  by  man,  by  his  strength 
of  arm  and  hardness  of  heart ; the  higher  work  that 
remains  can  be  accomplished  only  by  woman,  by  means 
of  her  subtler  ethical  perceptions  and  larger  charities. 
The  enemies  that  formerly  obstructed  the  path  of 
upward  humanity  were  gross  and  palpable,  — savage 
beasts  and  savage  men  ; but  those  which  survive  are 
rather  the  impalpable  forces  of  ignorance,  selfishness, 
hate,  against  which  woman  is  our  predestined  champion. 
As  the  mother  of  the  race  woman  can  achieve  greater 
triumphs  in  the  struggle  against  spiritual  evils  than  all 
other  forces  combined.  She  has  the  training  of  those 
who  will  hereafter  be  the  fighters  or  the  peacemakers 
of  the  world.  If  she  would  set  herself  to  eradicate 
seeds  of  international  jealousy  and  to  substitute  those 
of  universal  friendship,  she  would  do  more  to  terminate 
the  worst  miseries  of  mankind  than  all  her  ministries 
have  done  to  relieve  them.  It  is  time  for  her  to  arise. 
If  the  world  is  ever  to  be  an  Eden  without  a Cain, 
it  will  be  by  the  help  of  Eve.  >/ 


104 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


REFERENCES 

1.  Deaf  Mutes  trained  in  the  Sentiments  of  War  (New 
Age,  July  s,  1900)  : 

An  esteemed  correspondent  sends  us  some  particulars  of  the  instruc- 
tion of  deaf  and  dumb  children  at  Queen’s  Park,  Glasgow  : “ In  the 
first  room  some  little  girls  were  busy  with  their  ordinary  lessons.  One 
of  them,  whose  age  might  be  eight  or  nine,  was  specially  good  at  lip 
language,  and  by  watching  her  teacher  as  she  slowly  articulated  little 
questions  was  able  to  give  bright  and  ready  answers  in  a tone  which, 
though  slightly  peculiar,  was  easily  understood.  One  of  the  questions 
' asked  was  : ‘ Do  you  like  Kruger  ? ’ Answer,  a short  and  decided 
‘No.’  ‘Who  is  it  then  that  you  like?’  Answer,  equally  prompt, 
‘ Baden-Powell.’  A daily  exercise  is  to  describe  a picture,  telling  the 
names  of  all  the  animals  or  objects  represented  in  it.  Thus  they  are 
taught  to  connect  words  and  images.  From  describing  pictures  they 
learn  to  make  original  mental  pictures  of  their  own.  Here  is  an  essay 
on  the  war,  written  by  a boy  of  nine,  which  I had  the  pleasure  of  read- 
ing. ‘ A soldier  gets  up  at  four  in  the  morning.  He  goes  to  a burn 
and  washes  his  face.  After  that  he  gives  his  horse  seeds  [intended  for 
grain]  and  water.  Then  he  goes  down  into  a trench  and  fights,  and  kills 
a Boer.  When  he  has  killed  the  Boer  he  goes  and  tells  Lord  Roberts. 
Lord  Roberts  says,  “ That’s  right,”  and  gives  him  a medal.’  ” 

2.  Scholars  degraded  by  the  Lessons  of  the  Day  : 

(a)  Confession  of  Mr.  John  M’Leod,  Inspector  of  Schools 
(New  Age,  December  20,  1900). 

I must  conclude  by  telling  you  of  an  instance  I met  with  last  autumn 
in  my  official  work.  In  a school  in  the  west  of  Ross-shire  I gave  to  a 
class  “ Paul  Kruger”  as  a subject  for  composition.  Among  other  things, 
one  girl  of  thirteen  years  of  age  wrote : “ Paul  Kruger  is  a scoundrel, 
and  at  the  same  time  an  earnest  man  of  prayer,  because  he  thinks  he 
can  deceive  the  Almighty  as  he  can  a natural  man  ” [ Laughter ].  I would 
have  thought  this  character  of  Kruger  would  be  obvious  to  all  as  well 
as  to  this  little  Highland  girl,  but  we  have  cranks  among  us  who  admire 
his  piety  and  his  patriotism,  and  I am  sure  these  cranks  will  feel  flat- 
tered when  I say  that  I regard  Kruger  and  themselves  as  birds  of  a 
feather  [ Laughter  and  applause]. 

(b)  Testimony  of  “ J.  H.  S.,”  St.  Helen’s  (Lancashire),  Morn- 
ing Leader , February  18,  1902. 

I have  in  my  possession  a child’s  copy  book  which  has  been  in  use 
at  a school  near  here,  the  name  of  which  I forward  to  you  under 


TO  THE  CHILD 


105 


separate  cover.  The  teacher,  by  whose  authority  I know  not,  has  taught 
the  child  to  write  in  the  book  which  I have  before  me,  — 

The  Boers  defeated  the  British  at  Majuba  in  1881. 

Not  until  the  Boers  are  exterminated  will  Majuba  be  avenged. 

The  Boers  are  very  treacherous  people. 

Such  is  an  exact  copy  of  what  the  child  wrote  as  instructed. 

3.  “ Songs  of  Innocence  ” (new  version),  Morning  Leader. 

Not  many  days  ago  the  Wolverhampton  day  schools  gave  a concert, 

and  this  was  a verse  they  sang : 

We  talk  of  night  surprises, 

Of  sudden  fierce  attacks, 

Of  shooting  Indian  rebels, 

Of  bayoneting  blacks, 

Of  fording  rapid  rivers, 

Of  threading  tangled  brakes, 

And  every  new  narration 
Fresh  ardor  still  awakes. 

The  Lady's  Companion,  London,  had  a poem  signed,  “ A Lady  in 
Khaki,  aged  15,”  and  entitled,  “A  Dainty  Dish  of  Boar,”  which  begins 
thus  : 

Take  a dirty  Boar, 

Clean  him  if  you  can, 

With  a spice  of  bayonet 
Place  him  in  the  pan. 

4.  Review  of  the  Week , London,  July,  1900. 

5.  Ibid. 

6.  War  against  War  in  South  Africa , p.  120. 

7.  War  against  War , p.  58. 

8.  Historians  influenced  by  the  “ Idols  of  the  Tribe  ” : 

Testimony  of  Burton,  History  of  Scotlasid,  Vol.  II,  pp.  281  — 
282 

Of  the  character  in  which  Wallace  first  became  formidable  the 
accounts  in  literature  are  distractingly  conflicting.  With  the  chroniclers 
of  his  own  country,  who  wrote  after  the  War  of  Independence,  he  is 
raised  to  the  highest  pinnacle  of  magnanimity  and  heroism.  To  the 
English  contemporary  chroniclers  he  is  a pestilent  ruffian,  a disturber 
of  the  peace  of  society,  an  outrager  of  all  laws  and  social  duties  ; finally, 
a robber,  the  head  of  one  of  many  bands  of  robbers  and  marauders  then 
infesting  Scotland. 

9.  New  Age , March  1 5,  1900. 


io  6 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


10.  The  Soldier's  Pocket  Book,  for  Field  Service.  By  General 
Viscount  Wolseley,  Fifth  Edition,  Macmillan  and  Co.,  1886, 
p.  169.  As  several  important  citations  are  made  from  this  military 
text-book,  the  edition  from  which  they  are  taken  is  here  given 
once  for  all. 

1 1.  Rev.  F.  W.  Aveling,  Herald  of  Peace,  London,  June,  1903. 

12.  Sir  Archibald  Hunter,  Peace  and  Goodwill , London  (1903), 
p.  59. 

13.  A Reuter  telegram,  January  18,  1904. 

14.  Letter  to  the  Times,  March,  1902. 

15.  Admiral  R.  D.  Evans,  I.oyal  Traitors,  p.  37. 

16.  Depressing  Effect  of  War  upon  Literature  {Echo, 
London,  June,  1900)  : 

At  a late  meeting  of  Cassell  & Co.,  shareholders,  the  chairman  made 
the  unwelcome  announcement  that  the  business  had  declined  and  that 
the  dividend  had  fallen.  This  fall-off  began  immediately  upon  the 
breaking  out  of  the  war.  A shareholder  reminded  the  Board  that  the 
war  was  a subject  which  cut  both  ways.  Apparently,  if  the  company  is 
to  retrieve  its  failing  fortune,  it  will  have  to  hire  men  to  weave  some 
popular  war  stories  for  our  enthusiastic  youth. 

17.  Magisterial  Approbation  of  Brutality  ( New  Age, 
June  13,  1901)  : 

Mr.  Fordham,  a London  police  magistrate,  apparently  strongly 
approves  of  brutality  when  it  takes  the  form  of  fisticuffs.  Last  Satur- 
day two  boys  were  brought  before  him  charged  with  fighting.  Said  his 
“worship,”  addressing  the  world  in  general,  “They  are  English  boys,  I 
suppose,  and  were  settling  a dispute  in  English  fashion,  — with  their 
fists.”  Added  his  “worship,”  addressing  the  prisoners:  “From  the 
Bench  I must  say  you  must  not  do  this.  But  you  may  go.” 


IV 

THE  MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR  TO 
THE  SOLDIER 


The  other  day  I happened  to  walk  through  the  Borovitsky  Gate. 
In  the  gateway  there  sat  an  old  and  crippled  beggar  with  his  head 
wrapped  in  a rag.  I took  out  my  purse  to  give  him  alms.  At  that 
moment  a smart-looking,  ruddy  young  fellow,  in  a grenadier’s  uniform, 
came  running  down  from  the  Kremlin.  On  seeing  him  the  beggar 
started  up  in  a fright,  and  hobbled  away  as  fast  as  he  could  down 
towards  the  Alexander  Garden.  The  grenadier  gave  chase,  but  not 
gaining  on  him  stopped,  and  poured  out  abuse  after  him  for  having 
broken  the  regulations  by  sitting  in  the  gateway.  I waited  for  the 
grenadier,  and  wherj  he  came  up  asked  him  if  he  had  learnt  to  read. 

“Yes,  I have.  What  then?” 

“Have  you  read  the  Gospel  ?” 

“ I have.” 

“Well,  have  you  read  the  passage,  ‘And  he  who  feeds  the 
hungry  . . . ’ ? ” 

He  knew  it,  and  listened  to  me.  I saw  that  he  was  puzzled.  Two 
passers-by  stopped  to  listen.  The  grenadier  evidently  felt  it  rather 
hard  that,  when  he  had  done  his  duty  well  by  driving  people  away 
according  to  his  orders,  he  should  suddenly  appear  in  the  wrong. 

• He  was  confused,  and  was  evidently  seeking  for  an  excuse.  Suddenly 
a light  shone  in  his  sensible  black  eyes.  He  turned  away  from  me  as 
if  going. 

“ And  have  you  read  the  military  regulations  ? ” 

I answered  that  I had  not  done  so. 

“Then  hold  your  tongue!”  said  he,  shaking  his  head  trium- 
phantly as,  wrapping  his  fur  coat  round  him,  he  stalked  proudly  to 
his  post. 

This  was  the  only  man  I had  ever  met  in  my  life  who  with  strict 
logic  had  decided  the  eternal  question  which,  in  our  actual  social 
state,  lay  before  me,  and  lies  before  every  man  calling  himself  a 
Christian.  — Tolstoy. 


IV 


THE  MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR  TO  THE  SOLDIER 

The  question  whether  war  is  more  harmful  to  the 
moral  nature  of  the  combatants  or  of  the  general  com- 
munity is  like  discussing  whether  the  murderer  or  the 
man  who  holds  the  clothes  be  more  depraved  ; but  it  is 
plain  that  the  training  and  occupation  of  the  soldier, 
apart  from  any  particular  act  of  killing,  subjects  him  to 
a train  of  influences  particularly  demoralizing.  But  since 
all  these  demoralizing  tendencies  reach  their  maximum 
in  standing  armies,  in  that  class  which  takes  up  “ the 
profession  of  arms  ” as  a means  of  livelihood,  and  in 
the  military  system  as  we  see  it  completely  organized 
in  modern  Europe,  it  is  chiefly  from  these  we  must 
draw  our  arguments  and  instances.  If  “war  is  hell” 
and  the  “sum  of  all  villainies,”  the  professional  fighter 
can  hardly  be  a spotless  saint. 

At  this  very  point,  therefore,  the  regular  soldier’s 
occupation  comes  into  collision  with  the  whole  trend 
of  modern  civilization,  which  is  towards  a humanistic 
rather  than  a political  goal.  In  the  industrial  sphere 
we  are  coming  to  ask  ourselves  how  best  to  make  men 
rather  than  money,  and  to  condemn  whatever  increases 
the  second  at  the  expense  of  the  first.  The  ancient 
world  was  content  to  have  a slave  class  to  do  the  scul- 
lion work,  while  the  new  humanitarian  spirit  demands 

109 


I IO 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


that  all  shall  be  elevated  to  the  rank  of  manhood  and 
citizenship.  Among  the  strong  arguments  for  the  abo- 
lition of  the  liquor  traffic  as  presently  carried  on  not 
the  least  powerful  is  derived  from  the  effect  of  their 
occupation  upon  the  health  and  character  of  barmen 
and  barmaids.  The  modern  world  is  not  happy  m 
purchasing  its  pleasures  by  the  morals  of  its  people. 
The  ancient  world,  again,  willingly  purchased  the  gen- 
eral purity  of  its  women  by  the  degradation  of  the 
hetaira ; but  modern  society  revolts  increasingly  against 
the  condemnation  of  any  section  of  womanhood  to  per- 
petual sin  in  order  to  purchase  immunity  for  the  rest. 
Viewed  in  this  light,  the  professional  soldier  is  a 
survival  of  a pagan  ethic,  a creature  condemned  to 
moral  helotism,  upon  the  substratum  of  whose  brutish- 
ness rise  the  culture  and  humanities  of  the  civilized 
races.  This  clash  of  ideals  cannot  continue,  and  the 
soldier,  as  representing  the  earlier  and  inferior,  must 
give  way  before  the  new  humanitarian  spirit.  We  have 
no  more  right  to  select  a class  of  men  for  special  de- 
moralization than  to  set  apart  a class  of  women  for 
special  corruption.  Modern  democracy  insists  upon 
equal  opportunity  for  all  men  ; and  if  the  fighting  man 
is  debarred  from  equal  virtue,  it  is  necessary,  if  only 
for  his  sake,  to  abolish  fighting.  All  questions  of 
political  expediency  shrink  into  nothingness  beside 
this  question  of  character.  Man  is  more  than  constitu- 
tions, the  citizen  than  the  state,  the  voter  than  the 
policy,  the  national  soul  than  the  body  politic  — all 
these  latter  being  but  agencies  through  which  the 
former  express  their  supreme  importance.  The  Briton 


TO  THE  SOLDIER 


1 1 I 


is  more  important  than  Britain,  the  Frenchman  than 
France,  the  Chinaman  than  China.  Whatever  makes 
manhood  is  to  be  followed  ; whatever  mars  it,  renounced. 
The  legalized  killer,  as  the  relict  of  an  old  and  barbar- 
ous society,  is  now  confronted  by  the  modern  concep- 
tion of  humanity.  Two  types  of  manhood  face  each 
other  for  a last  grapple,  the  prize  being  dominion  over 
the  future  race.  Caesar  is  making  his  last  stand,  Christ 
his  determined  advance  to  the  throne.  The  issue  cannot 
be  uncertain.  Barbaric  survivals  crumble  before  to- 
day’s humanism.  The  soldier  cannot  live  in  the  same 
world  with  the  Christ. 

The  average  ecclesiastical  person  is  still  divided  in 
his  allegiance,  rendering  to  Caesar  not  only  the  taxes 
which  are  his  but  the  moral  ideals  which  belong  to 
Christ.  One  of  these,  speaking  at  a missionary  meet- 
ing in  Exeter  Hall,  described  the  contradictions  called 
“Christian  soldiers”  as  men  who  fought  like  devils 
and  prayed  like  saints,  and  the  saying  was  greeted 
with  cheers.1  From  a ravaged  district  another  wrote, 
“ Soon  the  whole  place  was  ablaze,  . . . leaving  what 
had  been  a well-kept  farmhouse  a mass  of  blackened 
ruins.  I had  a service  in  camp  that  same  evening 
which  was  attended  by  the  colonel  himself,  who  is  an 
earnest  Christian  man.”  2 Very  little  discrimination  is 
required  to  detect  the  welter  of  confusion  in  which 
such  persons  lie.  A book  much  in  vogue  among  this 
very  class  should  have  taught  them  to  be  ashamed  of 
their  inconsistency,  even  if  they  never  read  further 
than  the  title-page ; for  if  they  had  only  asked  in  all 


I 12 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


sincerity,  “What  would  Jesus  do?”  they  would  have 
seen  that,  while  it  was  possible  to  imagine  him  praying 
like  a saint,  they  could  never,  in  their  wildest  mo- 
ments, suppose  him  to  fight  like  a devil.  The  “ Chris- 
tian soldier”  superstition  has,  without  doubt,  eaten 
deeply  into  the  conscience  of  the  ecclesiastical  world, 
being  reflected  in  its  hymnology3  and  fostered  by  such 
biographies  as  those  of  Hedley  Vicars  and  Henry 
Havelock  and  the  traditions  of  praying  fighters  like 
Gustavus  Adolphus,  Oliver  Cromwell,  and  Charles 
Gordon.  The  psychological  puzzle  presented  by  these 
praying  warriors  is  not  to  be  solved  by  the  cheap  and 
superficial  theory  of  hypocrisy,  — a theory  as  false  as 
it  would  be  absurd,  — but  rather  by  reference  to  the 
war  of  ideals  represented  by  Caesar,  the  type  of  brute 
dominion,  and  Christ,  the  type  of  spiritual  supremacy. 
It  is  not  necessary  to  question  the  Christianity  of  their 
manhood,  while  strongly  asserting  the  heathenism  of 
their  soldierhood,  or  to  deny  the  title  of  “ Christian 
man,”  while  declaring  that  of  “Christian  soldier”  to  be 
a contradiction  and  an  absurdity  as  great  as  if  one  were 
to  speak  of  merciful  murder  or  truthful  lying.  A pro- 
fessional apologist 4 may  extol  “the  high  distinction 
the  blessed  Master  has  placed  upon  the  soldier’s  call- 
ing,” and  declare  how  “ his  eyes  were  opened  to  the 
wonderfully  deep  sense  of  religion  in  the  army,”  but  a 
genuine  evangelist  6 testifies  that  “soul-saving  is  very 
difficult  work  in  camp ; their  hearts  are  so  full  of 
bitterness  and  revenge.”  With  fighting,  killing,  or 
brute  force  of  any  kind  Christianity  has  simply  nothing 
to  do ; a truth  which  might  have  been  supposed  to  be 


TO  THE  SOLDIER 


1 13 

settled  by  the  declaration  of  its  founder,  — “ My  king- 
dom is  not  of  this  world,  else  would  my  servants  fight.” 
The  frightful  inconsistency  of  those  “ Christians  ” who 
could  at  the  same  time  carry  against  an  enemy  prayer 
and  a sword,  love  and  slaughter,  forgiveness  and  death, 
and  who  could  (according  to  their  theology)  for  an 
earthly  fault  blow  his  soul  into  an  everlasting  hell,  — 
this  can  be  explained  only  as  the  persecuting  apostle 
afterwards  explained  his  conduct, — they  “did  it  igno- 
rantly,” and  “the  times  of  their  ignorance  God  winked 
at.”  The  divine  charity  will,  it  is  to  be  supposed,  con- 
tinue to  regard  in  the  same  way  the  action  of  those 
ecclesiastics  and  army  chaplains  who  carry  the  name 
of  Christ  into  the  camp  of  Caesar  and  inflict  upon  it 
the  unutterable  degradation  of  sanctifying  the  unchris- 
tian and  antihuman  ethics  of  the  heathen  Mars. 

It  is  impossible  to  take  a more  charitable  view  of 
those  pulpit  apologists  for  the  soldier  who  wrest  an 
approval  of  soldiering,  and  of  the  entire  system  of 
militarism  into  which  it  has  grown,  from  the  simple 
facts  that  Jesus  spoke  respectfully  of  and  to  such 
soldiers  as  he  met,  and  that  Paul  mixed  military  meta- 
phors freely  with  his  religious  instructions.  To  grant 
the  lawfulness  of  the  soldier’s  calling,  it  is  urged,  is  to 
grant  the  lawfulness  of  war,  and  since  Jesus  did  not 
specifically  condemn  such  soldiers  as  came  his  way,  he 
must  be  held  to  have  approved  of  the  soldier,  and 
therefore  of  war!  Try  the  same  argument  with  a 
simple  change  of  terms.  Jesus  did  not  in  set  words 
condemn  such  slave  owners  as  he  met,  and  Paul  fre- 
quently employed  metaphors  drawn  from  the  relation 


1 14  MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 

between  slaver  and  slave  in  his  religious  teaching ; 
consequently,  Jesus  and  Paul  must  be  held  to  have 
approved  of  slavery ; consequently,  slavery  is  lawful, 
and  must  be  perpetuated  to  the  end  of  time  ! But  this 
is  absurd  ; and  therefore  the  fact  that  Jesus  did  not 
openly  condemn  soldiers  cannot  be  held  to  justify  the 
continued  existence  of  the  soldier  and  his  trade. 

Since  this  confusion  of  ideas  prevails  in  the  church, 
clearness  of  vision  can  hardly  be  expected  in  the  camp. 
Yet  when  driven  into  a corner,  the  soldier  is  sometimes 
capable,  like  Tolstoy’s  grenadier,  of  a logical  decision 
impossible  to  his  clerical  apologists.  Asked  whether 
he  has  read  the  Gospels  he  will  triumphantly  retort 
the  question  whether  his  interrogator  has  read  the 
military  regulations,  and  if  the  reply  be  in  the  nega- 
tive will  counsel  him  to  hold  his  tongue ! Thus  the 
military  regulations,  which  the  soldier  has  read  and 
solemnly  sworn  to  obey,  are  set  above  the  Gospels, 
which  he  has  also  probably  read,  but  without  being 
required  to  practice.  He  is  under  strictest  law  to 
Caesar,  — a law  palpably  and  strongly  embodied  in  the 
military  regulations  and  scrupulously  enforced  by 
courts-martial  and  summary  executions  ; whereas  he  is 
under  law  to  Christ  only  in  an  impalpable  and  remote 
sense,  backed  by  no  visible  authority  and  enforced  by 
no  immediate  penalties  ; such  penalties  as  are  attached 
being,  moreover,  generously  undertaken  for  him  by 
Caesar,  who,  for  his  part,  is  quite  willing  to  bear  all 
the  damnation  he  does  not  believe  in,  for  the  sake  of 
making  the  poor  dupe  he  enlists  a more  complete  and 


TO  THE  SOLDIER 


1 1 5 

successful  automaton.  “Well,  well,  you  are  my  officer, 
you  know,”  said  the  private  (in  Old  Mortality ),  with 
true  military  conscience,  “and  if  anything  is  wrong” 
— “I  ’ll  take  the  blame,”  said  Inglis,  his  officer : 
“ Come,  another  pot  of  ale.”  He  will  hear  the  saying 
of  the  Iron  Duke  that  “ men  who  have  nice  notions  of 
religion  have  no  business  to  be  soldiers  ” ; Sir  Charles 
Napier  will  assure  him  that  “to  overcome  all  feelings 
of  religion  is  generally  the  means  of  making  a warrior”  ; 
Horatio  Nelson  will  sum  up  his  whole  duty  in  the  in- 
compatible precepts,  “Fear  God,  honor  the  king, .and 
hate  your  enemies  like  the  very  devil  the  throne6  it- 
self will  postulate,  “ If  religious  principles  were  allowed 
to  be  urged  by  individual  officers  as  a plea  for  disobe- 
dience of  orders,  the  discipline  of  the  army  would  sustain 
an  injury  which  might  be  dangerous  to  the  state”;  and 
from  such  doctrine  he  will  readily  infer  that  the  military 
authorities  have  set  up  a new  Sinai,  whose  one  word  is 
“obey,”  absolving  him  alike  from  the  obligations  and 
the  penalties  of  the  Decalogue.  When  this  point  has 
been  reached  the  sayings  of  the  Gospels  fall  naturally 
and  easily  into  their  place  as  amiable  sentiments  “ ap- 
pointed,” like  King  James’  version  of  the  Bible,  “to  be 
read  in  churches,”  but  not  in  any  way  to  modify  the  mili- 
tary regulations  ; and  it  becomes  easy  for  gallant  generals 
and  their  clerical  allies  to  hint  that  the  Person  who 
declared  the  taking  of  the  sword  to  be  preliminary  to  per- 
ishing by  the  sword  was  a quite  impossible  individual. 

The  general  irrationality  of  war  — that  men  should 
fight  like  savage  and  unreasoning  beasts,  as  against 


1 1 6 MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 

arbitration,  which  flings  men  back  precisely  upon  their 
distinctive  attribute  of  reason  — has  for  its  specific 
consequence  the  damnation  of  the  soldier  into  a con- 
dition of  sworn  unreason,  by  which  he,  in  set  terms, 
abdicates  his  rational  faculty,  his  moral  sense,  his  right 
to  hold  or  express  opinions  upon  any  subject  connected 
with  his  employment  as  a hired  fighter.  That  passive 
obedience  which  is  the  first  and  last  duty  of  a soldier 
powerfully  illustrates  the  essential  immorality  of  his 
calling ; for  the  makers  of  war,  recognizing  that  their 
objqcts  could  never  be  accomplished  if,  at  every  step 
on  the  way,  their  tool  were  permitted  to  reflect  upon 
the  rightness  or  wrongness  of  his  cause,  have  been 
compelled  to  withhold  all  moral  choice  from  him.  He 
is  like  the  old  general  in  Tolstoy’s  Resurrection,  who 
“did  not  even  allow  himself  to  think  of  such  things, 
counting  it  his  patriotic  duty  as  a soldier  not  to 
think  of  them,  for  fear  of  getting  weak  in  the  carry- 
ing out  of  these,  according  to  his  opinion,  very  im- 
portant obligations.”  If,  unable  wholly  to  subdue  his 
distinctive  human  faculty,  he  permits  a doubt  to  haunt 
his  mind,  it  must  not  interfere  with  the  business  on 
hand.  His  oath  has  relieved  him  from  the  necessity  of 
being  virtuous.  Tennyson’s  ringing  words,  which  have 
stirred  the  fierce  brute  in  myriads  of  hearts,  have  also, 
to  those  who  had  ears  to  hear,  rung  the  knell  of  the  sol- 
dier’s conscience  : “ Theirs  not  to  make  reply,  theirs  not 
to  reason  why,  theirs  but  to  do  and  die,” — their  one  duty 
being  to  kill  whom  they  are  commanded  to  kill,  and  their 
one  alternative  to  be  killed  by  the  enemy  or  the  court- 
martial.  If  a soldier  has  orders  to  execute  a dying  man, 


TO  THE  SOLDIER 


II 7 

who  must  expire  anyhow  within  twenty-four  hours,  he 
will  drag  him  from  his  bed  and  the  presence  of  his  nurs- 
ing wife,  place  him  in  a chair  (since  he  cannot  stand), 
and  shoot  him.7  He  will  take  a “rebel,”  whose  only 
crime  is  the  crime  of  George  Washington,  — with  a fatal 
malady  also  upon  him,  — tie  him  blindfolded  to  a chair, 
spite  of  his  petitions  to  be  permitted  to  stand  up  and 
look  death  in  the  face,  and,  fifteen  to  the  file  and  ten 
paces  off,  will  blow  the  side  from  him,  fling  him  into  a 
hole  with  the  broken  chair  atop,  and  march  away  to 
the  sound  of  merry  music.8  The  persons  against  whom 
the  command  is  issued  make  no  difference — “ theirs  not 
to  reason  why”  — whether  against  African  Mashonas, 
Boer  farmers,  Soudan  Arabs,  Filipino  patriots,  Irish 
Nationalists,  or  Yorkshire  strikers,  among  whom  may 
be  his  own  father;  he  must  stab  or  shoot  according 
to  order,  without  so  much  as  thinking  about  justice, 
piety,  right.  A European  war  lord  passes  the  word 
for  all  when  he  says,  “ I may  call  upon  you  to  shoot 
down  or  bayonet  your  own  relatives,  — father  and 
mother,  sisters  and  brothers.  My  orders  in  that  re- 
spect must  be  executed  cheerfully  and  without  grum- 
bling. You  must  do  your  duty,  no  matter  what  your 
hearts’  dictates  are.” 9 So  schooled,  he  is  prepared 
(though  all  will  not  declare  it  so  frankly),  like  George 
Fox’s  captain  of  militia,  to  “obey  his  superior’s  com- 
mands ; and  if  it  were  to  crucify  Christ  he  would  do 
it;  or  execute  the  great  Turk’s  commands  against  the 
Christians,  if  he  were  under  him.”  10  When  he  takes 
the  king’s  shilling  he  swears  to  serve  the  king,  right 
or  wrong,  and,  which  is  worse,  without  asking  whether 


1 1 8 MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 

he  is  right  or  wrong;  for  while  it  is  always  immoral  to 
violate  conscience,  it  is  a more  hopeless  and  terrifying 
form  of  immorality  to  deliberately  abjure  conscience  — 
to  swear  that  one  will  not  so  much  as  own  a conscience. 
From  the  pages  of  Westward  Ho!  — that  prose  epic 
of  a fighting  Protestantism  — Charles  Kingsley  con- 
temptuously dismisses  one  of  his  characters  thus  : 
“This  book  is  a history  of  men  — of  men’s  virtues  and 
sins,  victories  and  defeats  ; and  Eustace  is  a man  no 
longer;  he  is  become  a thing,  a tool,  a Jesuit,  which 
goes  only  where  it  is  sent,  and  does  good  or  evil  in- 
differently as  it  is  bid ; which,  by  an  act  of  moral 
suicide,  has  lost  its  soul  in  the  hope  of  saving  it ; 
without  a will,  a conscience,  a responsibility  (as  it 
fancies)  to  God  or  man,  but  only  to  ‘ The  Society.’ 
In  a word,  Eustace,  as  he  says  himself,  is  ‘dead.’ 
Twice  dead,  I fear.  Let  the  dead  bury  their  dead. 
We  have  no  more  concern  with  Eustace  Leigh.”  In 
this  fearful  passage  one  has  only  to  substitute  the 
words  “soldier”  for  “Jesuit”  and  “army”  for  “society” 
to  make  its  application  to  the  military  system  complete. 
Equally,  they  do  not  think  — they  obey.11  And  it  would 
be  interesting  to  inquire  how  much  history  would  be 
left  if  the  historian,  having  precisely  the  same  grounds, 
dismissed  the  soldier  from  his  pages  in  the  same  sum- 
mary fashion  as  the  romanticist  dismisses  the  Jesuit! 
or  how  much  romance  would  be  left  if  the  novelist 
were  to  eject  the  soldier  along  with  the  Jesuit ! Happily, 
however,  for  fiction,  if  not  quite  so  happily  for  ethics, 
the  novel  writers  have  declined  to  be  consistent,  and 
have  given  us  many  a parallel  to  the  blunt  declaration 


TO  THE  SOLDIER 


HQ 

of  Major  Bellenden  in  Old  Mortality:  “I  am  no 
politician,  and  I do  not  understand  nice  distinctions. 
My  sword  is  the  king’s,  and  when  he  commands  I draw 
it  in  his  cause.”  An  immense  volume  of  evidence  bears 
us  irresistibly  to  the  conclusion  of  Tolstoy  — himself  a 
soldier  — that  “military  life  in  general  depraves  men. 
It  places  them  in  conditions  of  complete  idleness,  i.e. 
absence  of  all  useful  work  ; frees  them  from  their  com- 
mon human  duties,  which  it  replaces  by  merely  conven- 
tional ones  to  the  honor  of  the  regiment,  the  uniform, 
the  flag ; and,  while  giving  them  on  the  one  hand 
absolute  power  over  other  men,  also  puts  them  into 
conditions  of  servile  obedience  to  those  of  higher  rank 
than  themselves.”  A self-respecting  man  would  rather 
be  a toad  under  a harrow  than  a human  thing  un- 
der the  blasphemous  authority  of  a military  martinet, 
whether  corporal  or  Kaiser.12  If,  in  the  following 
passage  from  Zimmerman,  we  substitute  “soldier” 
for  “monk,”  “army”  for  “order,”  and  “barracks” 
for  “cloister,”  we  shall  completely  understand  what 
Tolstoy  means  by  the  depraving  effect  of  artificial 
obedience  upon  the  natural  virtues : “The  partial 
attachment  of  a monk  to  the  interest  of  his  order, 
which  is  often  incompatible  with  that  of  other  citi- 
zens, the  habit  of  implicit  obedience  to  the  will  of  a 
superior,  together  with  the  frequent  return  of  the 
wearisome  and  frivolous  duties  of  the  cloister,  debase 
his  faculties  and  extinguish  that  generosity  of  senti- 
ment and  spirit  which  qualifies  men  for  thinking  and 
feeling  justly  with  respect  to  what  is  proper  in  life 
and  conduct.”  13 


120 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


Debasement  of  faculty  is,  in  truth,  one  of  the  most 
distressing  results  of  military  training.  War  is  not 
only  the  great  stupidity,  but  the  cause  of  stupidity  in 
those  who  wage  it ; so  that,  without  generalizing  too 
roughly,  it  may  safely  be  asserted  that  hired  and 
drilled  fighters  are  the  most  stupid  class  of  men  in 
the  world.  The  same  high  authority  who  gave  us 
the  Soldiers  Pocket  Booku  assures  us  that  officers 
may  possibly  be  “ men  of  weak  minds  ” ; even  a general 
may  be  “ useless  and  impossible,”  and  his  men  may 
know  their  commander  “to  be  a fool.”  Testimonies 
from  those  who  have  seen  the  Great  Stupidity  per- 
formed before  their  eyes  are  abundant : “ I have  seen 
mere  lads  leading  men  into  action  who,  in  point  of 
brains,  were  not  fit  to  lead  a mule  to  water,  and  others 
who,  in  regard  to  manners,  were  scarcely  fit  to  follow 
the  mule.”  15  When  captured,  “they  behave  in  a most 
unsportsmanlike,  ungentlemanly,  foolish  manner,  . . . 
draw  offensive  caricatures  of  [their  captors],  . . . are 
rude  and  cheeky  to  the  officials,  boasting  of  what  their 
fellow-soldiers  will  do  to  them  when  they  take  [the 
Capital],  Their  chief  offense,  however,  is  in  speaking 
to  and  shouting  at  the  ladies  and  young  girls  who  walk 
past  the  schoolhouse.”  16  Virtue  apart,  it  is  plain  that 
his  oath  absolves  the  hireling  even  from  the  necessity 
of  being  rational. 

A more  important  question,  however,  arises  as  to  the 
effect  of  this  military  temper  — this  deliberate  and 
reasoned  abdication  of  reason,  this  dutiful  renunciation 
of  morals  — upon  the  general  community.  Into  every 
section  of  society  go  these  lay  figures  with  the  blinded 


TO  THE  SOLDIER 


I 2 I 


eyes,  suspended  reason,  suppressed  conscience,  effaced 
moral  nature,  reacting  everywhere  as  icebergs  upon  the 
moral  temperature  of  communities  and  dead  weights 
upon  the  uplifting  spirit  of  man.  Testimony  enough 
is  afforded  on  this  point  by  the  hideous  dilemma  in 
which  persons  find  themselves  who,  in  time  of  a war, 
are  compelled  to  question  its  justice.  Condemning 
and  opposing  the  affair  on  its  demerits,  they  are  yet 
logically  forced  to  acquit  the  men  who  carry  it  through, 
landing  themselves  in  a moral  inconsistency  more 
painful  and  harmful  than  any  flaw  in  logic.  Denoun- 
cing an  act,  they  yet  acquit  the  actor ; stigmatizing  it 
as  a crime,  they  cannot  brand  the  doer  as  a criminal ; 
deploring  many  of  the  incidents  as  positively  fiendish, 
they  continue  to  speak  of  the  perpetrators  as  gentlemen 
and  Christians,  — and  thus  encourage  the  spirit  which 
regards  the  army  as  a fetich  against  which,  as  such, 
no  whisper  must  be  spoken.  The  result  is  to  entangle 
even  military  magnates  in  such  confusions  that  while 
one  eulogizes  the  army  as  “heroes  on  the  battlefield, 
gentlemen  on  all  other  occasions,”  17  another  denounces 
“the  dissolute  riffraff  of  the  London  pothouses,” 18 
of  whom  the  stout  Jack  Falstaff  might  speak  the  word, 
— “Tut,  tut;  good  enough  to  toss;  food  for  powder, 
food  for  powder;  they’ll  fill  a pit  as  well  as  better.” 
Regarding  their  doings  on  the  field,  a military  apolo- 
gist19  will  impudently  assert  that  “any  officer  or 
soldier  who  had  been  in  action,  or  who  had  ever  seen 
any  service,  would  tell  them  that  there  never  was  a 
British  soldier  who  committed  an  act  of  cruelty  or 
oppression”  ; but  the  famous  imperial  poet 20  who  set 


122 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


out  to  make  the  soldier  epical  and  ended  by  showing 
him  beastly  will  give  the  true  analysis : “ Speaking 
roughly,  you  must  employ  either  blackguards  or  gen- 
tlemen — or,  best  of  all,  blackguards  commanded  by 
gentlemen  — to  do  butcher’s  work  with  efficiency  and 
dispatch.  ...  A blackguard  may  be  slow  to  think 
for  himself,  but  he  is  genuinely  anxious  to  kill  — and 
a little  punishment  soon  teaches  him  how  to  guard  his 
own  skin  and  perforate  another’s.”  Yet  even  decent 
people  will  plead  the  soldier’s  oath  in  extenuation  of 
his  vilest  deeds, — such  is  the  dulling,  stupefying  influ- 
ence of  the  military  system  upon  the  civilian  mind 
itself.  We  must  not,  forsooth,  blame  the  butcher  (the 
word  is  Kipling’s  — we  thank  thee,  Jew,  for  teach- 
ing us  that  word  !),  for  he  had  to  obey  orders ; he 
had  taken  the  oath.  But  shall  we  not  blame  him  for 
taking  such  an  oath,  for  swearing  to  be  a butcher  ? 
’T  is  there  the  trouble  lies. 

The  training  of  the  soldier  is  a deliberate  and  con- 
sistent education  in  the  arts  of  violence,  in  the  charac- 
teristics of  the  brute  as  against  those  of  the  man. 
When  some  great  generals  lapse  into  public  speech 
they  make  their  meaning  plain  in  good  set  terms. 
They  declare  their  determination  to  foster  the  fighting 
instincts  of  their  countrymen  by  every  means  in  their 
power.  They  are  in  favor,  they  say,  of  any  society 
that  will  keep  fighting  going  on  all  over  the  world, 
and  resuscitate  it  wherever  it  ceases.21  It  was  by  the 
sword  — such  is  their  pious  creed  — that  their  country 
made  itself  great,  and  by  the  sword  its  greatness  must 


TO  THE  SOLDIER 


123 


be  upheld.  The  pity  is,  that  such  persons  imagine 
themselves  to  be  good  patriots,  and  to  show  a proper 
spirit  of  manliness ; they  do  not  see  themselves  as 
mere  uniformed  and  epauletted  cannibals.  Various  forms 
of  the  handbook,  or  Vade  Mecum ,22  are  also  issued 
from  time  to  time  by  those  in  authority,  in  which  the 
soldier  may  read  what  is  expected  from  him  in  the 
art  and  ethic  of  war  — set  forth  in  little  maxims  and 
sententious  counsels  designed,  for  the  most  part,  to 
foster  the  belief  that,  by  his  military  oath,  he  is  freed 
from  the  humanities  and  moral  obligations  which  bind 
the  common  man.  True,  there  is  some  mention  of 
“ moral  qualities,”  but  they  are  found  to  resolve  them- 
selves into  good  spirits  and  courage.  Faith,  love, 
mercy  are  never  so  much  as  hinted  at.  But  he  will 
there  find  it  written  that  “ his  duties  are  the  noblest 
that  fall  to  man’s  lot  ” ; that  “ soldiers,  like  mission- 
aries, must  be  fanatics,”  and  must  “ despise  all  those 
of  civil  life”  — that  is,  those  who  keep  them;  the 
army  that  begins  as  the  paid  tool  of  civilians  ends  by 
setting  its  foot  on  the  breast  of  the  civil  powers. 
“ The  soldier  is  a peculiar  animal,  that  can  alone 
be  brought  to  the  highest  efficiency  by  inducing 
him  to  believe  that  he  belongs  to  a regiment  which 
is  infinitely  superior  to  the  others  around  him.” 
“ Make  a man  proud  of  himself  and  of  his  corps.” 
Dress  also  is  announced  to  be  “of  much  more  con- 
sequence than  civil  ministers  imagine”  — for  “the 
better  you  dress  a soldier,  the  more  highly  he  will  be 
thought  of  by  women,  and  consequently  by  himself.” 
We  may  well  pause  here,  and  press  the  question  home 


124 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


upon  our  minds,  whether  we  are  justified  in  purchasing 
empire,  territory,  rule,  trade,  by  the  deliberate  corrup- 
tion of  millions  of  our  fellow-men.  Let  it  be  assumed, 
for  the  moment,  that  armies  are  necessary  to  good 
government ; are  we  entitled  to  buy  the  blessings  of 
civil  life  by  the  systematic  demoralization  of  the  entire 
military  caste  ? But  the  Soldier  s Pocket  Book  goes  a 
step  farther  in  its  authoritative  plan  of  corruption,  for 
it  approves  the  fact  that  “ the  soldiers  of  an  army  are, 
as  a general  rule,  of  one  class  in  all  respects  ; are  in  the 
prime  of  youthful  manhood,  full  of  fire,  passion,  and 
recklessness,  and  not  brought  into  contact  with  the  sof- 
tening influences  of  old  men  and  respectable  women.”  23 
It  is  here  we  touch  the  bottom  rung  in  the  process  of 
brutalizing  Kipling’s  “butchers.”  The  vast  majority 
of  them  are  denied  the  humanizing  influences  of  domes- 
ticity, and  are  avowedly  encouraged  to  seek  the  society 
of  women  only  amongst  the  lowest  of  the  sex.  In  this 
direction  it  might  have  been  thought  the  barrack  room 
tended  steadily  enough  with  all  its  stimulus  to  idleness, 
licentiousness,  disease;  for  even  Kipling,  who  knows, 
assures  us  that  “ single  men  in  barricks  don’t  grow 
into  plaster  saints.”  But  the  military  authorities  are 
not  content  with  the  natural  gravitation  of  the  barracks  ; 
they  must  expedite  the  process  by  encouraging  its  en- 
slaved victims  to  avoid  the  company  of  respectable 
women.24  Thus  it  is  that  ever  below  the  deepest  deep 
opens  a deeper  still;  for  on  the  heels  of  this  abomina- 
ble crime  follows  the  most  dreadful  contagious  disease, 
and  upon  that,  again,  either  openly  or  by  stealth,  the 
contagious  disease  Act , 25  plunging  into  hell26  whole 


TO  THE  SOLDIER 


125 


hecatombs  of  victims,  male  and  female,  in  order  to 
secure  the  small  boon  of  permitting  the  governing 
classes  to  sit  securely  on  their  seats  of  authority. 
“I  need  not  enlarge,”  says  Richard  Cobden,  “upon 
the  direct  moral  evils  of  such  places  [barracks].  One 
fact  is  enough.  Real  property  always  falls  in  value 
in  the  vicinity  of  barracks.  A prison  or  a cemetery 
is  a preferable  neighbour.”  Alas  ! what  curses  war 
drags  behind  it ! It  must  not,  of  course,  be  thought 
that  every  soldier  falls  a victim  to  the  seductions  so 
carefully  planned  for  him  by  his  superiors ; many 
contrive  to  resist  the  corrupting  influences  of  their 
environment  through  the  force  of  early  training  or 
innate  goodness,  and  succeed  in  retaining  some  por- 
tion of  their  manhood,  even  when  they  have  parted 
with  their  freedom. 

When  by  these  means  he  has  been  carefully  edu- 
cated in  brutishness  the  drilled  automaton  deteriorates 
into  a tool  for  the  accomplishment  of  the  real  purposes 
of  his  destroyers,  — fit  for  any  villainy  under  the  name 
of  patriotism,  any  brutality  which  danger  converts  into 
bravery,  and  any  cruelty  which  can  be  justified  by  the 
plea  of  necessity.  His  rulers  play  craftily  upon  “the 
longing  for  distinction  which  is  the  mainspring  to  all 
military  feeling,”  and  incite  him  to  every  kind  of  ad- 
venture with  the  promise  that  he  shall  be  “ petted 
and  rewarded,”  if  he  show  a sufficiency  of  that  animal 
“courage”  which  “in  a man  is  the  highest  of  all 
virtues.”  2<  After  his  native  humanity  has  been  re- 
duced to  a minimum  by  the  schooling  of  the  barrack 


126 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


room  he  is  prepared  to  have  the  remaining  fragment 
seared  by  the  discipline  of  the  camp  and  made  callous 
by  the  practices  of  the  battlefield. 

At  the  very  barrack-room  door  (the  preface  of  the 
Soldier s Pocket  Book)  he  will  be  assisted  to  conjure  up 
visions  of  “the  wild  life  one  has  to  lead  in  the  field 
when  cut  adrift,  perhaps  entirely,  from  civilization,” 
and  of  the  days  when  he  may  hope  to  see  “ shot  fired 
in  anger.”  He  steps  upon  the  inclined  plane  which 
leads  downward  through  every  kind  of  cruelty  to  man 
and  beast,  and  touches  bottom  in  such  characters  as 
“ Hell-Roaring  Jake,”  the  general  who  instructed  his 
subordinate  to  “ make  Samar  a howling  wilderness,” 
to  “ kill  everything  over  ten,”  “everything  that  was 
capable  of  bearing  arms,”  — who  on  his  own  admission 
had  been  guilty  of  deeds  which  an  American  news- 
paper, The  Nation,  pronounced  to  be  “ unspeakably 
fiendish  barbarities.”  28  When  his  comrades  have  been 
slain  in  fair  fight  it  will  appear  admirable  to  nurse 
the  spirit  of  vengeance  till  “neither  death,  nor  hell, 
nor  things  above,  nor  things  below,  will  hold  him  back 
from  his  blood  feud.”29  When  his  comrades  have 
“stabbed  and  murdered  prisoners  and  wounded  just 
like  a lot  of  Sioux,”  the  enemy  will  retaliate  by  vows 
to  “ wipe  that  regiment  off  the  rolls,  no  mercy  and  no 
quarter.”  30  To  gain  a spiteful  advantage  over  his  foe 
he  will  inflict  the  most  repulsive  and  heartrending 
cruelties  upon  the  helpless  and  unoffending  creatures 
of  the  field.31  Truer  word  than  that  of  Sherman,  the 
American  general,  was  never  spoken  : “ War  is  cruelty ; 
and  you  cannot  refine  it.”  32 


TO  THE  SOLDIER 


127 


Writers  of  poetry  and  romance  have  dwelt  too  exclu- 
sively on  the  brighter  side  of  the  soldier’s  career,  — 
his  scorn  of  danger,  recklessness  of  life,  prodigality  of 
blood,  cheerful  endurance  of  hardship,  good  comrade- 
ship, and  esprit  de  corps;  have  assumed  that  these 
qualities  were  always  displayed  in  worthy  causes,  and 
have  touched  the  darker  side  with  light  and  hasty 
pencil.  It  is  this  lower  side  which,  though  necessarily 
rejected  by  the  rhymer  and  romancer,  must  be  contem- 
plated unsparingly  by  the  student  of  ethics.33  An  army 
is  by  no  means  a school  of  chivalry,  for  it  assumes, 
to  begin  with,  that  the  cause  it  fights  for  is  just ; 
infers,  in  the  next  place,  that  the  enemy  is  an  aggressor 
and  a traitor ; and  proceeds,  in  the  end,  to  adopt  the 
most  unchivalrous  methods  of  getting  the  advantage 
over  him.  “We  have  had  to  burn  down  two  pretty 
farms  because  the  women  would  not  give  the  general 
information  he  wanted  ; . . . they  got  half  an  hour  to 
clear  out.  . . . We  have  been  burning  all  the  farms 
we  came  across.  From  one  kopje  we  saw  twelve  farms 
blazing, — some  of  them  very  pretty  homesteads.” 34 
“In  ten  miles  we  have  burned  no  fewer  than  six 
farmhouses ; the  wife  watched  from  her  sick  husband’s 
bedside  the  burning  of  her  home  a hundred  yards  away. 
It  seems  as  though  a kind  of  domestic  murder  were  being 
committed.  I stood  till  late  one  night  and  saw  the 
flames  lick  round  each  piece  of  the  poor  furniture,  — 
the  chairs  and  tables,  the  baby’s  cradle,  the  chest  of 
drawers  containing  a world  of  treasure,  — and  when  I 
saw  the  poor  housewife’s  face  pressed  against  the 
window  of  the  neighboring  house  my  own  heart  burned 


128 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


with  a sense  of  outrage.  The  effect  on  the  Colonial 
troops,  who  are  gratifying  their  feelings  of  hatred  and 
revenge,  is  very  bad.  They  swarm  into  the  houses, 
looting  and  destroying,  and  filling  the  air  with  high- 
sounding  cries  of  vengeance.”  35  “The  nearer  to  [the 
Capital],  the  greater  becomes  the  desolation,  . . . for 
a hundred  miles  ...  an  absolute  wilderness.  It  was 
here  that  the  long-pent-up  fury  of  Mr.  Atkins  was 
finally  let  loose ; here  that  the  disasters  and  disgraces 
of  . . . were  wiped  out  in  blood  and  fire ; . . . every 
night  as  the  demoralized  [foe]  sought  refuge  in  the 
hills  . . . they  looked  back  and  saw  miles  of  broad 
patches  of  flame  . . . where  their  crops  and  home- 
steads had  been  twenty-four  hours  before.”36  “[The 
foe]  are  simply  our  antagonists  in  the  field,  and  because 
we  cannot  catch  them  ...  we  devastate  their  land 
and  destroy  their  means  of  future  livelihood.  This  is 
not  war  — this  is  revenge  ; and  a mean,  sneaking, 
and  cowardly  revenge  it  is.”37  The  generous  writer  of 
these  last  words  spoke  from  the  warm  dictates  of  his 
heart  rather  than  from  the  facts  of  history.  War  upon 
women  and  children,  or  rather  war  upon  men  through 
their  women  and  children,  is  one  of  the  commonest 
devices  of  a campaign  of  subjugation.  For  the  war  god 
is  not  at  heart  a hero  : he  is  a cowardly  assassin  — a 
ravisher  and  an  incendiary.38  The  maxims  for  soldiers, 
already  referred  to,  include  rules  directly  contradicting 
the  home-grown  chivalry  expressed  in  such  proverbs  as 
Never  kick  a man  when  he  is  down;  for  they  require  a 
beaten  and  retreating  foe  to  be  harassed  by  every  pos- 
sible means.  When  that  “ flying  hell  of  horse  and  foot 


TO  THE  SOLDIER 


129 


and  guns,”  so  vividly  pictured  by  Browning,  has  swept 
and  broken  him,  the  soldier  is  instructed39  to  “run 
after  him,  hammer  him  with  guns,  charge  him  with 
cavalry,  harass  him  with  mounted  infantry,  keep  push- 
ing him  and  hitting  him  from  morning  until  night,  . . . 
pursue  him  to  the  bitter  end.”  There  is  a “time  to 
crush  him  with  a hail  of  bullets.  . . . Don’t  rest  satis- 
fied until  you  have  pinched  him  well,  given  his  main 
body  a good  kick.  Hold  on  stoutly  like  a bulldog, 
. . . turn  round  and  worry  him  again ; and  if  you 
cannot  seize  him  in  front  by  the  collar,  try  to  catch 
him  by  the  breeches  behind.”  It  is  in  accordance 
with  these  exalted  principles  of  chivalry  that  when  the 
enemy  asks  an  armistice  to  bury  his  dead,  it  is  to  be 
refused  ; if  he  seeks  honorable  terms,  he  is  met  by  the 
peremptory  demand  for  absolute  and  unconditional  sur- 
render. A commander  “ should  not  for  a moment  allow 
any  absurd  and  false  ideas  of  humanity  or  sentimental 
notions  about  chivalry  to  influence  his  decision.  . . . 
Never  allow  any  high-minded,  chivalrous  feelings  to 
carry  you  away  and  grant  really  favorable  terms  to 
a well-beaten  enemy.”  This  is  called  following  up  a 
victory,  and  is  defended  as  being  war.  That  is  just 
the  point : it  is  war ; and  it  is  not  chivalry. 

Honor  and  truthfulness  have  also  been  usually  asso- 
ciated with  chivalry,  and  therefore  with  war  as  a form 
of  chivalry  ; but  though  there  is  an  artificial  product 
called  military  honor,  it  is  quite  compatible  with  delib- 
erate falsehood,  and  espionage  of  the  meanest  kind. 
The  common  talk  of  the  barracks  and  the  camp 


130 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


familiarizes  the  recruit  with  the  fact  that  his  employers, 
even  in  times  of  peace,  keep  whole  swarms  of  spies 
to  worm  military  secrets  out  of  the  officials  of  other 
governments,  and  spend  enormous  sums  of  secret 
money  in  suborning,  bribing,  and  corrupting  the  serv- 
ants and  soldiers  belonging  to  other  armies.  He  will 
thus  be  prepared  for  any  act  of  deception  the  military 
authorities  may  require.  He  will  hear  of  a great  officer  40 
going  about  among  a disaffected  populace,  where  he 
can  “trust  nobody,  . . . not  men,  certainly  not  women," 
and  therefore  bribing  children  to  be  the  unconscious 
destroyers  of  their  fathers,  for  “ the  children  are  the 
only  safe  draws.  What  I do  is  to  stuff  my  pockets 
full  of  sweets,  go  out  for  a walk,  and  talk  to  the  chil- 
dren. They  tell  you  where  their  papas  have  gone.’’ 
The  maxims  for  soldiers  will  be  a valuable  auxiliary  in 
this  process  of  turning  an  honest  man  into  a uniformed 
liar.  He  learns  the  great  distress  of  his  superiors  that 
“ we  will  keep  hammering  along  with  the  conviction 
that  Honesty  is  the  best  policy , and  that  Truth  always 
wins  in  the  long  inn.  These  pretty  little  sentences  do 
well  for  a child’s  copy  book,  but  the  man  who  acts 
upon  them  in  war  had  better  sheathe  his  sword  for- 
ever,” 41  and  that  is  a consummation  the  powers  of  the 
world  cannot  contemplate  without  dismay. 

Arrived  on  the  field,  the  sworn  dupe  will  receive 
practical  lessons  in  the  art  of  scientific  falsehood,  will 
find  strategic  lying  carried  to  the  pitch  of  a fine  art. 
The  ninth  commandment  follows  the  eighth  into  the 
limbo  of  discarded  moralities,  and  the  Bible  packed  into 
his  knapsack  by  a churchgoing  mother  is  overlaid  by 


TO  THE  SOLDIER 


13  I 

the  Pocket  Book  provided  by  a war-waging  general.  In 
this  military  pentateuch  he  will  find  a commander 
encouraged  to  spread  false  reports  in  order  to  deceive 
the  enemy,  — for  “ many  a success  has  been  obtained  by 
circulating  rumors  of  intended  movements,  and  then 
doing  the  very  reverse  ” ; to  write  false  letters  for  the 
purpose  of  letting  them  fall  into  the  enemy’s  hands,  — 
and  a dispatch  bearer  “ should  carry  two  dispatches,  one 
real,  the  other  false,”  or,  “ by  spreading  false  news 
among  the  gentlemen  of  the  press,  use  them  as  a 
medium  by  which  to  deceive  an  enemy”  ; to  forge 
telegrams  and  messages  in  your  enemy’s  name,  “direct- 
ing them  to  move  so  as  to  fall  into  a net  prepared 
for  them”  ; to  invent  news  “with  a view  to  puzzling 
and  misleading  the  enemy.”  Deceit,  personal,  general, 
wholesale,  raised  to  a height  of  perfection  which  Ana- 
nias might  have  envied ; elaborated  and  enmeshed  till 
“ Lying  as  one  of  the  fine  arts  ” starts  forth  a compan- 
ion picture  to  De  Quincey’s  “ Murder  as  one  of  the 
fine  arts,”  but  requiring  the  genius  of  the  same  incom- 
parable connoisseur  for  its  analysis  and  eulogy,  — that  is 
the  kind  of  deceit  fostered  by  military  life,  and  which, 
learned  there,  must  continuously  infect  every  depart- 
ment of  civil  and  domestic  life  like  a black  plague. 
Unlike  its  commercial  namesake  (which  is  not  naturally, 
but  only  occasionally  and  through  individual  perverse- 
ness, false),  the  military  process  known  as  “ invest 
ment  ” is  always  and  necessarily  an  acted  and  spoken 
lie  : “The  true  object  of  the  movement  should  only 
be  known  to  those  two  officers,  but  a false  one  must  be 
found,  and  when  within  one  or  two  days’  marches  of 


132 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


the  place  excuses  must  be  found,  and  made  the  sub- 
ject of  general  conversation,  for  having  deviated  from 
the  previously  announced  intention,  the  true  one  being 
denied  up  to  the  last  day.”  Ananias  might  have  saved 
life  and  lands  both  if  he  had  received  these  instruc- 
tions to  an  envoy,  — “ taking  care  in  conversation  to 
impart  to  the  enemy  whatever  impressions  it  may  have 
been  previously  decided  it  was  desirable  to  convey,  and 
concealing  under  an  air  of  extreme  soldierlike  frankness 
andvoltcbility  all  that  it  is  desirable  to  conceal.”  The 
commander  in  chief  regrets  that  “ the  word  ‘spy’  conveys 
something  as  repulsive  as  ‘slave,’”  and  does  his  best  to 
remove  the  opprobrium  from  that  indispensable  auxil- 
iary; for  the  hired  liar  is  as  necessary  to  his  country’s 
glory  as  the  hired  killer,  — “a  few  thousand  pounds  is 
of  no  consequence  to  a nation,  but  if  well  laid  out  in 
obtaining  information,  it  may  be  the  indirect  means  of 
adding  to  the  victories  of  one’s  country;  . . . gold,  that 
mighty  lever  with  men,  is  powerful  enough  to  unlock 
secrets  that  would  otherwise  remain  unknown  ; ...  it 
is  always  best  to  pay  informers  and  spies  by  results  ; 
. . . all  [spies]  should  be  petted  and  made  a great  deal 
of,  being  liberally  paid,  and  large  rewards  given  them ; 
. . . his  police,  by  means  of  spies,  should  keep  him  well 
informed  of  all  that  passes  among  the  inhabitants  ; . . . 
with  good  spies  in  the  enemy’s  camps,  they  can  send 
their  information  by  a trusty  peasant,  who  can  pass 
without  suspicion,”  — and  so  on  through  pages  of  pre- 
lections whose  single  object  is  to  remove  the  home- 
made morality  of  an  ill-taught  youth,  and  substitute  a 
code  of  morals  which  has  a war  office  for  a Sinai,  a field 


TO  THE  SOLDIER 


133 


marshal  for  a Moses,  and  a Decalogue  with  all  the  “nots” 
ostentatiously  rubbed  out.  Here  are  plans  for  organiz- 
ing entire  corps  of  spies,  personators,  informers,  de- 
serters, bribers,  corruptors  (“  should  be  given  plenty  to 
drink  if  he  likes  to  have  it,  in  the  hope  of  being  able 
to  extract  news  from  him  when  liquor  has  untied  his 
tongue  ”),  and  all  manner  of  liars  ever  gotten  beneath 
“the  blanket  of  the  dark”  by  the  “father  of  lies.”  An 
army  is  here  proved  to  be  a school  of  deceit,  wherein  the 
very  old  Serpent  writes  the  headlines,  and  Beelzebub 
brandishes  the  birch ; for  to  falsehood  in  all  its  shades 
and  grades  it  adds  the  further  sins  of  hypocrisy  and 
blasphemy.  The  same  Bible  which  forbids  the  doing 
of  evil  that  good  (even  your  “ country’s  victories  ”)  may 
come  is  made  the  grand  instrument  of  fraud.  “ It  is  a 
good  plan  to  write  secret  correspondence  in  lemon  juice 
across  or  along  the  edge  of  a newspaper  or  the  pages 
of  a book,  which,  like  a Testament,  would  excite  no 
suspicion.  . . . Bona  fide  spies  should  always  have 
about  their  persons  some  means  of  proving  themselves 
to  be  whom  they  represent, — a certain  coin  of  a certain 
date,  a Bible  of  a certain  edition,  a Testament  with  the 
third  or  the  seventh  leaf  torn  out,"  etc. 

The  eighth  commandment  being  formally  cleared  out 
of  the  way,  “looting  comes  easy  to  most  soldiers  ; very 
few  men  distinguish  between  meum  and  tuum  ; ” 42  and 
an  army  quite  naturally  becomes  a band  of  robbers. 
“They  make  great  hauls,  — watches,  clothes,  money,  and 
jewellery.”43  Men  put  on  duty  nominally  to  prevent  loot- 
ing, loot ; and  commanding  officers  dispatch  large  cases 
home  by  government  vessels.44  Arrived  at  a beautifully 


134 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


furnished  house,  the  officers  secure  all  “ they  can  make 
use  of,  ...  I secure  a Bible,  . . . after  getting  all  we 
want  out  of  the  house,  our  men  put  a charge  under  it 
and  blow  it  up.  ...  It  was  a lovely  house.”45  The 
warrior’s  appetite  for  Bibles  is  to  be  noted  as  a psycho- 
logical curiosity.  He  is  so  greedy  of  the  “ word  of  the 
Lord”  (though,  alas!  only  for  its  cash  or  curio  value, 
or  because  it  contains  the  family  register  of  a dead  foe 
and  his  vanished  household)  that  benevolent  people46 
at  home  “ desire  it  to  be  known  that  they  will  be  glad 
to  arrange  for  the  return”  of  the  stolen  Scriptures,  and 
some  scores  are,  as  a matter  of  fact,  sent  back  to  their 
former  owners.  Which,  in  turn,  starts  another  curious 
psychological  puzzle,  — why  benevolence  should  care 
to  restore  a man’s  Bible  after  war  has  destroyed  his 
household  gods,  and  even  starved  his  wife  and  chil- 
dren to  death  ; and  whether  the  war-blasted  solitary 
would  care  to  receive  back  his  Bible  from  the  hands  of 
his  destroyer.  In  such  a case  the  book  of  inspiration 
might  well  prove  to  be  the  book  of  expiration  — of 
faith ! 

The  reasoned  immoralities  of  war  being  such,  it  is 
natural  that  its  actual  performances  should  plumb  yet 
deeper  depths  of  baseness.  Spite  of  international  cove- 
nants, the  popular  saying,  All' s fair  in  love  and  war , 
does,  to  this  hour,  represent  its  methods,  — all  rules, 
conventions,  treaties,  being  blown  to  the  winds  under 
the  pressure  and  passion  of  the  fight.  The  records  of 
any  campaign  will  supply  evidences  that  a commander 
does  not  scruple  to  go  beyond  the  formal  rules  of  the 


TO  THE  SOLDIER 


135 


game  if  it  promises  him  an  advantage,  or  when  the  laws 
of  warfare  solemnly  drawn  up  by  the  nations  conflict 
with  the  exigencies  of  the  position.  He  is  ready  to 
break  an  arrangement  made  with  the  enemy,  throwing 
the  blame  on  the  shoulders  of  some  subordinate ; to 
break  promises  given  to  civil  populations  as  well  as 
to  combatants,  tamper  with  prisoners’  letters,  organize 
and  arm  savages  against  a white  enemy  under  the  pre- 
tense of  “defending  their  own  territory,”  permit  orgies 
of  rape,  rapine,  and  murder  under  the  guise  of  “ looking 
for  rebels”;  to  manufacture  expanding  bullets, — declar- 
ing that  when  these  and  a thousand  similar  wiles  are 
“ to  our  interest  ”...  any  means  to  that  end  is  ad- 
visable.” 47  The  nations  have  universally  selected  the 
effigies  of  the  nobler  creatures  for  their  emblems,  — 
the  lion,  bear,  eagle,  — which,  had  they  voice,  might  de- 
cline the  patronage  of  wiles  and  cruelties  of  which  they 
were  incapable  ; and  though  the  meaner  beasts  might, 
with  greater  justice,  be  selected  for  the  place  of  honor, 
they,  in  their  turn,  might  protest  that  they  were  un- 
worthy to  patronize  the  fighting  man,  whose  treacheries 
infinitely  exceed  anything  within  the  compass  of  the 
mere  brute.  If  the  courage  of  the  lion  is  displayed,  not 
less  is  the  fierceness  of  the  tiger  and  the  cunning  of  the 
fox  ; if  here  the  brawny  honesty  of  the  bear,  there,  also, 
the  sly  rapacity  of  the  wolf.  If  his  best  friend  could  not 
affirm  the  harmlessness  of  the  dove,  his  worst  enemy 
dare  not  deny  the  wisdom  of  the  serpent.  The  snake 
in  the  grass  lies  not  more  cunningly  in  ambush  than 
the  lurking  soldier,  neither  does  the  wildcat  spring 
with  crueler  thirst  to  blood.  If  valor  displays  itself 


136  MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 

manlike  out  here  in  the  open,  craft  sneaks  worm- 
like, on  its  belly,  down  there  in  the  cover.  If  in  mid- 
field  men  clash  together  in  a trial  of  strength  not 
without  its  saving  touch  of  grandeur,  on  the  fringe 
the  suborned  traitor  is  drawing  forces  off,  and  yonder 
the  paid  spy  brings  auxiliaries  up.  If  at  one  time  men 
accept  a challenge  to  stand  up  to  fight  on  equal  terms, 
at  another  they  are  lured  out  to  be  taken  at  a disad- 
vantage and  fallen  upon  in  a general  massacre.  Tol- 
stoy tells  that  when  speaking  to  a cadet  from  the 
military  college  who  had  come  to  him  for  religious 
advice,  “Towards  the  end  of  the  conversation  I men- 
tioned wine,  and  advised  him  not  to  drink.”  He  replied: 
“ But  in  military  service  it  is  sometimes  necessary.  . . . 
Why,  at  Geok-Tepe,  for  instance,  when  Skobeleff  had 
to  massacre  the  inhabitants,  the  soldiers  did  not  wish 
to  do  it ; and  he  had  drink  served  out,  and  then  . . .”  48 
But  no  people  monopolizes  the  heart  of  stone  ; as,  for 
instance,  this  : “ By  Kitchener’s  orders  the  tomb  had 
been  profaned  and  razed  to  the  ground.  The  corpse 
of  the  Mahdi  was  dug  up,  the  head  was  separated  from 
the  body  and  passed  from  hand  to  hand  till  it  reached 
Cairo.  The  limbs  and  trunk  were  flung  into  the  Nile. 
Such  was  the  chivalry  of  the  conquerors.”  49  These  are 
the  arts  of  war,  and  will  be  defended  as  war.  Yes,  it 
is  war,  but  it  is  not  chivalry.  It  will  be  urged  that 
these  devices  are  inseparable  from  war,  and  are  there- 
fore to  be  condoned.  Yes,  they  are  inseparable  from 
war,  — to  demonstrate  that  and  drive  it  home  to  the 
heart  is  the  very  object  for  which  these  pages  are  writ- 
ten. War  being  granted,  these  effects  are  inevitable 


TO  THE  SOLDIER 


137 


as  burning  from  flame.  But  war  as  their  cause  is  en- 
tirely preventable.  Whatever  chivalry  goes  with  war 
does  not  belong  to  it ; is  accident ; is  displayed  in  purer 
form  in  the  spheres  of  hardy  toil,  fraternal  service,  and 
humane  sacrifice.  Essentially,  war  is  meanness. 

Complete  indifference  to  human  life  is  often,  in  these 
various  ways,  perfected  in  the  soldier’s  character ; he 
becomes  inured  to  sights  and  prepared  for  deeds  he 
would  formerly  have  contemplated  with  disgust.  Dat- 
ing his  letter  from  the  Christian  festival  of  peace,  he 
is  not  ashamed  to  indite  to  his  friends  sentiments  such 
as  these  : “ The  screams  of  the  artillery  horses  struck 
by  shot  or  shell,  and  the  groans  of  wounded  men  were 
awful,  and  filled  us  with  a yearning  desire,  which  you 
at  home  cannot  fathom,  to  get  at  our  foes  with  the 
bayonet.  Hang  firing!  was  the  thought  of  us  all;  let 
us  stab  and  thrust  with  our  cheese  knives.  How  we 
grumbled  and  cursed  at  having  to  retire  with  the 
Dutch  devils  firing  into  our  backs”  ; or  these  : “I  fol- 
lowed, and  soon  came  up  to  him.  He  turned  and  fired. 
Instinctively  I turned  my  head,  and  the  bullet  struck 
my  helmet.  The  scoundrel  then  fell  on  his  knees  and 
begged  for  mercy.  Mad  with  rage,  I rode  at  him  with 
tilted  lance.  It  entered  one  cheek  and  came  out  at  the 
other  side  of  his  head.  He  rolled  on  his  back,  but,  to 
make  sure,  I pricked  him  in  the  stomach.  As  far  as  I 
know,  this  was  the  only  man  I killed,  though  I pricked 
several  who  were  either  wounded  or  apparently  dead.”  60 
Popular  literature  sedulously  fosters  the  tradition  of 
noble  courage  in  connection  with  soldierly  character, 
but  military  authorities51  testify  to  a baser  side  : 


138  MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 

“ The  officer  who  acts  upon  the  principle  that  all  his 
soldiers  are  equally  brave,  will  some  clay  find  out  his 
error  to  his  cost,  . . . men  are  only  too  fond  of  help- 
ing their  wounded  comrades  out  of  fire,  and  when  once 
away,  it  is  difficult  to  get  them  back  again  ; . . . man 
for  man,  the  Afridee,  the  Bedouin  Arab,  the  Zulu,  and 
the  Maori  is  braver  than  many  of  the  men  in  every 
regiment,  in  every  army”  : there  are  “malingerers” 
and  “ skulkers  of  all  ranks.”  Desperately  as  its  advo- 
cates may  plead,  warfare  is  the  worst  possible  remedy 
for  these  and  other  ethical  defects ; but  on  the  con- 
trary tends,  in  the  words  of  a British  general,  to  “ turn 
the  men  into  cowards  or  butchers.”  From  recruit  to 
field  marshal  the  art  and  practice  of  war  exhibits  one 
continuous  process  whereby  a fellow-creature  is  de- 
graded from  a man  into  a soldier.  Everything  con- 
nected with  it  tends  to  blunt  the  soldier’s  sensibilities, 
deaden  his  remorse,  and  impair  his  sense  of  the  sanc- 
tity of  life.  He  sees  comrades  bleeding  to  death  on  the 
field  or  rotting  in  hospital  ; they  fall  out  of  the  ranks, 
and  he  marches  on  leaving  them  to  certain  death.  The 
commanding  officer  is  himself  compelled  to  disregard 
the  sufferings  of  the  wounded  in  times  of  stress  ; they 
were  taken  out  to  fight,  not  to  be  nursed.  The  private 
does  not  blame  the  general  for  this  ; he  knows  it  can- 
not be  otherwise,  — that  if  the  general’s  choice  lies  be- 
tween fighters  and  invalids,  ammunition  and  mattresses, 
batteries  and  ambulances,  guns  and  drugs,  horses  and 
nurses,  he  must,  in  every  case,  choose  the  former,  and 
permit  the  latter  to  take  their  chance.  “ An  army  or  a 
fighting  force,  no  matter  how  small,  should  not  have 


TO  THE  SOLDIER 


139 


its  action  hampered  by  having  to  care  for  the  welfare 
of  sick  or  wounded  men ; . . . never  allow  your  men  to 
fall  out  to  pick  up  wounded  men;  . . . the  wounded 
must  take  their  chance  till  the  operation  is  finished.”  52 
The  splendid  machine  does  not  murmur ; and  the  stoi- 
cism with  which  he  meets  his  own  lingering  doom  comes 
to  be  matched  by  the  unconcern  with  which  he  regards 
the  doom  of  comrades,  and  the  stolidness  with  which  he 
inflicts  it  on  his  foe.  When  the  foe  has  “ fled  in  a thick 
mass,  and  the  mounted  infantry  has  pursued  them  for 
twelve  miles,  shooting  from  the  saddle,  . . . hardly  less 
than  three  or  four  hundred  killed,”  53  his  ardent  soul  will, 
with  the  comprehending  hate  of  a Caligula  who  wished 
that  his  enemies  had  but  one  neck,  long  to  “get  the 
beggars  all  in  a heap,  and  then  drop  a few  lyddite  shells 
among  them,”  54  or  he  will  play  the  hero  in  an  epic 
such  as  this  : “ The  other  night,  when  ordered  out  at 
midnight,  we  proceeded  in  deadly  silence,  with  bayo- 
nets fixed,  with  instructions  not  to  shoot,  but  to  use 
bayonet  and  butt  — and  take  no  prisoners.  We  take 
no  more  notice  of  shrieks  for  mercy  than  we  would  of 
the  cawing  of  crows.  You  won’t  be  able  to  understand 
these  things  over  there,  but  they  are  the  correct  thing 
here.”  55  Thus  he  plies  his  sword  like  a sickle,  shoots 
with  compunction  as  slight  as  if  men  were  ninepins, 
and  at  last  finds  terms  in  which  to  justify  the  slaughter 
of  the  wounded  on  the  field  or  the  murder  of  those 
who  have  flung  down  their  arms  and  begged  for  quarter. 
The  Soldier  s Pocket  Book  (which  may  be  regarded  as 
his  New  Testament)  starts  him  on  the  gory  path  of 
the  assassin  and  the  butcher  by  its  plain  instructions 


140 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


that  “ with  all  savages,  to  kill  its  warriors  is  invariably 
the  most  efficacious  policy,  and  it  should  therefore  be 
regarded  as  of  primary  importance.”  56  But  the  policy 
of  massacre  extends  itself  to  peoples  other  than  “ sav- 
ages,” as  the  annals  of  every  war  bear  ample  and 
melancholy  proof.  Every  military  people  have  their 
version  of  the  Soldier  s Pocket  Book,  or  New  Testa- 
ment ; and  there  was  never  a war  of  any  magnitude 
since  the  world  began  that  had  not  its  necessary  accom- 
paniments in  the  massacre  of  wounded  and  the  orders 
“Take  no  prisoners.”  This  one  red  vignette  shall 
stand  for  symbol  of  the  whole  : “ The  ‘ Cease  fire  ’ 
[at  Eland’s  Laagte]  had  sounded  several  times  on  the 
summit,  but  the  firing  did  not  cease.  I don’t  know 
why  it  was.  Perhaps  the  Boers  were  still  resisting  in 
parts.  Certainly  many  of  our  men  were  drunk  with  ex- 
citement. ‘Wipe  out  Majuba!’  was  a constant  cry. 
But  the  Boers  had  gone.  The  remnants  of  them  were 
struggling  to  get  away  in  the  twilight  over  a bit  of 
rocky  plain  on  our  left.  Then  the  Dragoon  Guards 
got  them  and  three  times  went  through.  A Dragoon 
Guards  corporal  who  was  there  tells  me  the  Boers  fell 
off  their  horses  and  rolled  among  the  rocks,  hiding 
their  heads  in  their  arms  and  calling  for  mercy,  — call- 
ing to  be  shot,  anything  to  escape  the  stab  of  those 
terrible  lances  through  their  backs  and  bowels.  But  not 
many  escaped.  ‘We  just  gave  them  a good  dig  as  they 
lay,’  were  the  corporal’s  words.  Next  day  most  of  the 
lances  were  bloody.”  57  The  horrid  facts  drive  us  to  the 
same  conclusion  as  Swift’s  : “The  trade  of  a soldier  is 
held  the  most  honorable  of  all  others  ; because  a soldier 


TO  THE  SOLDIER 


141 


is  a Yahoo  hired  to  kill  in  cold  blood  as  many  of  his 
own  species,  who  had  never  offended  him,  as  possibly  he 
can.”  It  is  in  the  nature  of  such  a creature  that  no 
consideration  of  the  gross  amount  of  suffering  is  per- 
mitted to  move  him  aside  from  the  immediate  thing 
commanded  ; the  bit  of  work  cut  out  for  him  and  his 
company  has  to  be  done ; and  done  it  is  with  as  little 
fear  as  pity.  The  daughter  of  the  farmhouse  may  sit 
down  to  the  piano  and  play  “Home,  Sweet  Home”  to 
him;  but  that  cannot  soften  a war-hardened  sinner; 
and  presently  he  will  carry  off  the  father  a prisoner, 
and  send  the  smoke  and  fire  of  that  home  in  clouds  to 
heaven.58  In  action,  he  has  no  more  ruth  of  being 
killed  than  of  killing.  He  will  narrate  how,  after  some 
faulty  sighting,  he  at  last  hit  his  foe:  “ I hit  him  right 
in  the  forehead,  and  he  fell  over.  Doctor,  you  should 
have  seen  it ; it  was  a dream  ; it  was  the  happiest  day 
of  my  life.”59  M.  Verestchagin,  the  famous  Russian 
battle  painter,  who  defined  war  as  “ the  antithesis  of 
all  morality,  of  all  humanity,”  nevertheless  declared 
that  it  “ has  all  the  excitement  of  a well-organized  and 
very  dangerous  sport.  I have  killed  people  myself  in 
battle,  and  I can  say  from  experience  that  the  excite- 
ment, and  even  the  feeling  of  satisfaction  in  killing  a 
man,  is  the  same  as  when  you  bring  down  game  in 
hunting.  For  man  as  he  is  war,  it  can  be  said  without 
exaggeration,  is  a very  attractive  business.”60  Drunk 
with  excitement,  the  fighter  is  frequently  unable  to  tell 
what  he  has  done.  Electric  brutality  thrills  him  to  the 
marrow  of  the  bone,  turning  what  should  be  horror  into 
“glory,”  — that  delirium  graphically  described  by  a 


142 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


great  general:  “We  all  ran  forward  at  a good  pace  under 
what  seemed  to  be  a well-sustained  fire  from  the  enemy’s 
works.  I could  see  a considerable  number  of  them  on 
the  top  of  the  parapet  or  stockade,  and  above  all  the 
noise  one  heard  their  defiant  shouts  of  ‘Come  on! 
Come  on ! ’ in  the  Burmese  tongue.  What  a supremely 
delightful  moment  it  was  ! No  one  in  cold  blood  can 
imagine  how  intense  is  the  pleasure  of  such  a position 
who  has  not  experienced  it  himself ; there  can  be  noth- 
ing else  in  the  world  like  it,  or  that  can  approach  its 
inspiration,  its  intense  sense  of  pride.  For  the  mo- 
ment your  whole  existence,  soul  and  body,  seems  to 
revel  in  a true  sense  of  glory.  The  feeling  is  catching, 
it  flies  through  a mob  of  soldiers  and  makes  them, 
whilst  the  fit  is  on  them,  absolutely  reckless  of  all  con- 
sequences. The  blood  seems  to  boil,  the  brain  to  be  on 
fire.  Oh,  that  I could  again  hope  to  experience  such 
sensations!  I have  won  praise  since  then,  and  com- 
manded at  what  in  our  little  army  we  call  battles,  and 
know  what  it  is  to  gain  the  applause  of  soldiers ; but, 
in  a long  and  varied  military  life,  although  as  a captain 
I have  led  my  own  company  in  charging  an  enemy,  I 
have  never  experienced  the  same  unalloyed  and  elevat- 
ing satisfaction,  or  known  again  the  joy  I then  felt  as 
I ran  for  the  enemy’s  stockades  at  the  head  of  a small 
mob  of  soldiers,  most  of  them  boys  like  myself.” 61 
Sometimes  the  occasion  is  so  terrific  and  overpowering 
that  sensation  is  transcended,  the  satiated  nerves  re- 
fuse to  feel  or  transmit  the  concussions  which  paralyze 
the  shattered  air,  so  that  “ the  sensation  of  being  in  the 
midst  of  this  scene  of  death  was  calm  and  sweet.  The 


TO  THE  SOLDIER 


143 


thought  of  death  was  not  present.  When  the  first  shell 
burst  upon  our  battery  we  forgot  our  dreams,  our 
thoughts,  our  griefs,  our  joys,  and  there  was  but  one 
sensation,  — that  of  sweet,  unutterable  serenity,  and 
this  lasted  to  the  end.”  62  On  more  ordinary  occasions 
his  senses  are  preternaturally  sharpened,  so  that,  as  a 
popular  officer  owns,  he  feels  buoyed  up  with  a feeling 
of  elation,  but  also  “with  a cruel  undercurrent  which 
the  Kaffirs  so  aptly  describe  as  seeing  red.”  Kaffir,  we 
thank  thee  for  that  word!  The  embattled  fighter  is  a 
being  who  sees  red,  — the  blood  is  in  his  eyes  as  well 
as  on  his  hands,  fills  soul  as  well  as  sense,  and  it  is  only 
when  worked  up  to  this  height  of  frenzy  that  he  is  able 
— according  to  the  strong  lines  of  Byron  — to  perform 

All  that  the  mind  would  shrink  from  of  excesses  ; 

All  that  the  body  perpetrates  of  bad ; 

All  that  we  read,  hear,  dream,  of  man’s  distresses  ; 

All  that  the  devil  would  do  if  run  stark  mad  ; 

All  that  defies  the  worst  which  pen  expresses  ; 

All  by  which  hell  is  peopled,  or  as  sad 

As  hell. 

Inflamed  by  the  passions  which  he  has  been  taught  to 
regard  as  the  working  of  his  noblest  instincts,  fired  with 
military  ardor,  thirsting  for  revenge,  burning  to  sustain 
or  enhance  the  reputation  of  his  regiment,  maddened 
by  calumnies  carefully  circulated  against  the  foe,  per- 
suaded and  persuading  himself  that  they  are  vermin 
fit  only  to  be  exterminated,  he  is  ready  to  see  justice 
where  formerly  he  would  have  seen  cruelty,  heroism 
where  once  brutality,  necessity  instead  of  murder  and 
revenge.  When  reduced  to  this  besotted  condition 


144 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


all  means  will  seem  lawful  that  promise  a victorious 
issue  ; he  is  prepared  to  add  the  cold,  calculated  cruelties 
of  a Torquemada  to  the  hot  blood  lust  of  a Tamerlane; 
the  Inquisition  will  be  set  up  within  the  camp;  and  the 
astonished  sun  will  look  down  upon  the  spectacle  of 
the  most  civilized  and  Christian  nations  of  the  world 
putting  their  captives  to  the  torture.63  No  comparison 
is  possible  between  the  man  he  was  and  the  fiend  he 
now  is.  Formerly  “an  officer  and  a gentleman,”  he 
will  now  write  gustfully  how  the  lancers  got  in  among 
the  enemy  in  the  twilight  and  enjoyed  “the  most  ex- 
cellent pig-sticking  for  about  ten  minutes,  the  bag  being 
about  sixty,”  64  and  in  the  phraseology  of  a rat  catcher 
describe  the  losses  of  a brave  enemy  as  “total  bag  . . . 
68 1.”  65  Aping  his  superiors,  the  private  will  entertain 
his  loving  friends  at  home  with  tales  of  how  “man-hunt- 
ing is  a better  game  than  football,”  “ pig-sticking  the 
best  of  sports,”  whilst  “ shooting  [foes]  is  like  shooting 
rabbits,”  and  he  is  “enjoying  himself  very  much.”  66 
Once  a brave  man,  now  a brute  beast ; once  merciful, 
now  a monster;  once  sober,  now  drunk  with  blood; 
once  honest,  now  a looter  of  the  living  and  a stripper 
of  the  dead ; once  virtuous,  he  makes  acquaintance 
with  respectable  women  at  last  in  the  way  of  rape  and 
ravishment.67  The  wounded  colonel  will  prop  his  back 
against  a tree  and  exhort  his  men  to  “exterminate  the 
vermin.”  68  The  stakes  being  life  and  death,  chivalry 
and  religion  disappear,  and  the  latent  savage  emerges 
thick  with  primeval  slime.  “ Give  ’em  hell,  boys  ! ” 
are  the  words  with  which  he  heartens  his  comrades  on 
to  the  fight ; and,  true  to  the  figure,  the  reporter  tells 


TO  THE  SOLDIER 


145 


how  they  “fought  like  demons  and  yelled  like  savages.” 
He  tells  how,  after  the  battle,  they  put  the  wounded 
prisoners  “ through  the  mill,”  and  shot  the  unwounded 
after  they  had  been  made  to  dig  their  ozvn  gi'avesP 
Discovering  a “sniper,”  they  “fairly  riddled  him  with 
bullets,”  then  “got  to  work  on  him  with  the  bayonets,” 
lastly  “tore  his  arms  and  legs  off.”  70  When  the  gen- 
eral tells  him  that  all  prisoners  taken  will  have  to  be 
fed  out  of  his  own  limited  rations,  he  takes  it  as  “a 
pretty  plain  hint  that  he  is  to  take  no  prisoners,  but 
kill  all.”  71  To  the  martial  mind,  a rebellious  popula- 
tion is  only  “ pacified  ” when  the  natives  lie  (peacefully 
enough  at  last)  in  their  quiet  graves.72 

If  it  were  the  case  that  war’s  repulsive  brutalities 
were  confined  to  the  creatures  who  welter  together 
amid  the  sweat  and  blood  of  the  cockpit,  war  would, 
however  disgusting  to  the  ethical  and  aesthetic  senses, 
be  able  to  plead  that  the  actual  sinners  were  also  the 
only  sufferers ; but  (not  to  speak  of  the  fact  that  these 
same  sinners  have  mothers,  sisters,  wives,  whose  hearts 
they  are  breaking  in  the  home  land)  they  emerge  from 
the  cockpit  to  overrun  the  invaded  territory  with  sword 
and  torch,  famine  and  plague,  bringing  similar  deaths 
and  ruin  upon  the  noncombatant  population.  They 
trample  down  growing  corn,  burn  homesteads,  break 
dams,  turn  women  and  children  out  into  blackened 
and  foodless  deserts,  or  keep  them  captive  on  half 
rations,  solely  to  strike  at  the  combatants  and  bring 
them  to  submission  through  their  domestic  affections 
and  miseries. 

Man’s  inhumanity  to  man 

Makes  countless  thousands  mourn. 


146 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


“ We  burn  ” [the  houses],  declares  a gallant  officer, 
“ because  your  men  won’t  give  in  ; if  that  won’t  do, 
we’ll  burn  the  women  next.” 73  Burning,  in  truth, 
might  be  the  kinder  method  when  — as  testified  by 
numerous  witnesses  who  might  be  multiplied  a hun- 
dred fold,  and  not  in  one  war  only  but  in  a thousand 
— the  alternative  is  such  deeds  as  these  : “ Our  prog- 
ress was  like  the  old-time  forays  in  the  Highlands 
in  Scotland  two  centuries  ago.  . . . We  moved  on  from 
valley  to  valley  ‘lifting’  cattle  and  sheep,  burning,  loot- 
ing, and  turning  out  the  women  and  children  to  sit 
and  cry  beside  the  ruins  of  their  once  beautiful  farm- 
steads.”74 ...  “I  gave  the  inmates  — three  women 
and  some  children  — ten  minutes ; my  men  then 
fetched  bundles  of  straw.  The  women  cried,  and  the 
children  stood  holding  on  to  them  and  looking  with 
large  frightened  eyes  at  the  burning  house.  We  left 
them  a forlorn  little  group,  smoke  and  flame  stream- 
ing overhead.  The  people  had  thought  we  had  called 
for  refreshments,  and  one  of  the  women  went  to  get 
milk.  Then  we  had  to  tell  them  we  had  come  to  burn 
the  place  down.”  75  . . . “Told  a woman  and  two 
daughters  to  take  a few  things  and  quit  in  ten  minutes. 
We  then  set  the  whole  place  on  fire.  They  dropped 
on  their  knees  and  prayed  and  sang,  weeping  bitterly 
the  while.  One  of  the  poor  women  went  raving  mad.”  76 
. . . “ When  the  flames  burst  from  the  doomed  place 
the  poor  woman  threw  herself  on  her  knees,  tore 
open  her  bodice,  and  bared  her  breasts,  screaming, 
‘ Shoot  me,  shoot  me,  I ’ve  nothing  more  to  live  for, 
now  that  my  husband  is  gone,  and  our  farm  is  burnt, 


TO  THE  SOLDIER 


147 


and  our  cattle  taken  ! ’ ” 77  . . . “ What  is  that  hell- 
hound — I ask  pardon  for  the  expression,  but  I can 
give  him  no  other  title  — Colonel  Butler  doing  now? 
Did  he  not,  in  the  last  summer,  go  up  the  forks  of  the 
Susquehanna  and  lay  desolate  every  little  township 
and  settlement  he  could  find  ? ” 78  This  is  war  ? Let 
it  be  war : then  war  is  not  chivalry,  war  is  not  courage ; 
war  is  despicable  meanness  and  cowardice.  War,  is 
it  ? Be  it  war  : then  an  army  is  a manufactory  for 
monsters,  a school  for  cowards  ! 

The  case  is  seen  to  be  the  more  desperate  when  we 
reflect  that  the  evils  connected  with  the  corruption  of 
the  soldier’s  character  do  not  pass  away  with  a cam- 
paign, but  endure  and  carry  their  baneful  leaven  into  the 
abodes  and  years  of  peace.  “ It  is  not  generally  known,” 
says  a military  authority,  “ that  in  a battle  many  of 
the  men  engaged  become  temporarily  insane,  . . . will 
butcher  the  wounded  and  even  turn  on  their  own  com- 
rades. . . . This  temporary  insanity  (the  medical  offi- 
cers call  it  “war  madness”)  comes  from  the  mind 
being  overstrained.  ...  Now  when  we  consider  what 
our  soldiers  went  through  in  [a  certain  campaign]  one 
ceases  to  be  surprised  at  the  murders  and  crimes 
of  violence  committed  by  some  of  them  since  their 
return.”  79  Surely.  To  say  that  a man  can  kill,  wound, 
ravage,  plunder,  and  then  return  to  his  friends  as  mild 
and  unselfish  as  he  went  away,  is  to  state  a moral 
impossibility.  Like  a certain  other  evil  of  which  Robert 
Burns  spoke,  warfare  “ hardens  a’  within,  and  petrifies 
the  feeling.”  Brutishness  and  violence  tend  to  become 
habitual,  and  exhibit  their  presence  long  after  the 


148 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


occasion  which  first  evoked  them  has  passed  away.  It 
has,  as  a matter  of  fact,  been  noted  that  after  all  great 
wars  crimes  of  violence  tend  to  increase  in  the  lands 
to  which  the  soldiers  return.  The  newspapers  record 
that  the  arrival  of  soldiery  invariably  marks  the  com- 
mencement of  a series  of  disorderly  scenes. 80  How 
can  it  be  otherwise?  Years  of  obedience  to  a visible 
and  inexorable  authority,  of  alert  eagerness  to  shoot 
or  alert  anxiety  to  avoid  being  shot,  of  weariness  on 
the  march  and  excitement  on  the  field,  — these  cannot 
fail  to  react  in  a restlessness  of  spirit,  a tendency  to 
lawlessness,  disdain  for  the  tamer  methods  of  civil  life 
and  security,  and  a corresponding  demoralization  to 
the  civil  population.  A laborer  is  charged  with  neglect- 
ing to  maintain  his  wife,  and  the  defense  is  that  he 
had  been  serving  abroad  and  had  been  “ demoralized 
by  the  war.”  81  It  is  a typical  case,  and  might  be 
illustrated  a hundredfold.  A fatal  riot  occurs,  and 
three  soldiers  are  condemned  to  death.  Appeals  are 
presented  in  favor  of  reprieve,  and  are  based  upon  the 
theory  that  “ having  been  taught  to  take  human  life 
on  every  possible  occasion,  they  were  so  accustomed 
to  killing  that  in  the  heat  of  the  moment  it  became 
the  most  natural  thing  for  them  to  do  !”  82  The  very 
acceptance  of  the  soldier’s  trade  tends  to  bring  the 
conscience  of  civil  society  down  to  the  military  level. 
Thus  the  baleful  circle  is  complete.  We  deliberately 
set  men  apart  and  train  them  to  do  the  works  of  the 
devil,  and  then  wonder  that  hell  gets  loose  ! If  a nation 
is  so  wicked  as  to  prepare  for  war,  it  need  not  be  sur- 
prised that  it  has  to  fight,  nor  so  foolish  as  to  complain 


TO  THE  SOLDIER 


149 


of  the  excesses  of  the  combatants.  What  it  sows  it 
must  reap.  Men  do  not  gather  grapes  of  thorns,  or  figs 
of  thistles.  The  price  we  pay  for  corrupting  the  soldier 
is  our  own  corruption.  The  political  greatness  of  a na- 
tion is  ill  founded  upon  the  demoralization  of  a class.  If 
only  for  the  nation’s  sake,  it  is  time  to  abolish  the  soldier  ; 
if  only  for  the  soldier’s  sake,  it  is  time  to  abolish  war. 

REFERENCES 

1.  New  Age , May  24,  1900. 

2.  Rev.  Norman  Bennet,  Matichester  Evening  News,  Novem- 
ber 17,  1900. 

3.  “ Hymnsof  the  British  Army: 1 Onward,  Christian  Soldiers.’” 

Preeminently  “ the  ” song  of  praise  of  the  British  Army. 

Many  years  ago  the  writer  attended  the  church  parade  service  in  the 

little  garrison  town  of  G . Most  of  the  men  had,  unfortunately, 

come  to  church  unprovided  with  their  “ Hymn  Books  Ancient  and 
Modern,”  — a little  weakness  common  with  Tommy,  one  must  add  in 
all  fairness,  — and  were  therefore  unable  to  join  in  the  singing  of  a 
hymn,  just  announced,  with  the  regimental  choir.  The  chaplain  looked 
crestfallen,  nay  appeared  to  seem  sorrowful,  when  he  saw  that  the  choir 
of  band  boys  were  having  it  all  their  own  way  ! Up  jumped  old  Colonel 
M — • — , the  kindly,  and  popular  with  the  men,  commanding  officer,  and 
in  a sotto  voce  exclaimed  to  the  preacher,  “ Let ’s  have  No.  391,  Hardy  ! 
the  men  all  know  it.”  This  saved  the  situation,  for  391  it  was  in  all 
sincerity,  as  the  grand  old  strains  echoed  and  reechoed  throughout  the 
building,  blended  with  the  rough  voices  of  the  men  to  the  tune  of 
“ Onward,  Christian  Soldiers  ! ” — Ex-Soldier,  Newcastle  Daily  Chron- 
icle, April  26,  1903. 

4.  Canon  Knox-Little,  New  Age,  May  28,  1903. 

5.  Salvation  Army  officer,  War  against  War  in  South  Africa, 

p.  186. 

6.  George  IV : Letter  of  Captain  Thomas  Thrush  to  the  king, 
1841. 

7.  Daily  News,  August  6,  1902. 

8.  Soldier’s  letter,  Reynolds'  Newspaper,  London,  January  24, 
1902. 


150 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


9.  The  Kaiser,  Coticord,  London,  February,  1905. 

10.  Journal  of  George  Fox , Vol.  I,  p.  469. 

11.  The  Soldier’s  Creed,  quoted  from  memory,  from  some 
fugitive  source  : 

“ Captain,  what  do  you  think,”  I asked, 

“ Of  the  part  your  soldiers  play?  ” 

But  the  captain  answered,  “ I do  not  think; 

“ I do  not  think,  I obey  1 ” 

“ Do  you  think  you  should  shoot  a patriot  down, 

“ Or  help  a tyrant  slay?” 

But  the  captain  answered,  “ I do  not  think ; 

“ I do  not  think,  I obey  ! ” 

“ Do  you  think  your  conscience  was  meant  to  die, 

“And  your  brain  to  rot  away?” 

But  the  captain  answered,  “ I do  not  think ; 

“I  do  not  think,  I obey!” 

“ Then  if  this  is  your  soldier’s  creed,”  I cried, 

“ You  ’re  a mean,  unmanly  crew  ; 

“And  for  all  your  feathers  and  gilt  and  braid, 

“ I am  more  of  a man  than  you  ! 

“ For  whatever  my  place  in  life  may  be, 

“And  whether  I swim  or  sink, 

“ I can  say  with  pride,  ‘ I do  not  obey ; 

“ ‘ I do  not  obey,  I think!  ’ ” 

12.  Human  Toads  and  Military  Harrows: 

When  the  Dreyfus  case  was  engaging  attention  in  France  a book 
was  published  containing  allegations  of  amazing  brutality  against  the 
noncommissioned  officers  of  the  French  army.  Though  it  was  gener- 
ally admitted  that  the  charges  were  true,  the  author  was  punished  for 
making  them.  We  remember  that  at  the  time  the  German  press  com- 
mented with  much  self-satisfaction  on  the  subject,  pointing  out  that  the 
attitude  of  the  German  officers  and  noncommissioned  officers  towards 
the  men  under  them  was  totally  different,  and  was  indeed  quite  benignant 
and  fatherly.  Since  then  the  world  has  learnt  a good  deal,  particularly 
in  connection  with  the  trial  of  an  officer  who  recently  murdered  a private 
for  failing  to  salute  him,  and  the  still  more  recent  trial  of  an  officer  who 
committed  the  indiscretion  of  dealing  with  these  subjects  in  a novel.  In 
the  trial  reported  to-day  a lieutenant  of  infantry  has  been  convicted  of 
618  cases  of  maltreatment  and  57  cases  of  improper  treatment  of  soldiers 
under  him,  and  a sergeant  in  another  regiment  has  been  convicted  of  1520 


TO  THE  SOLDIER 


151 

cases  of  maltreatment  and  100  cases  of  improper  treatment.  The  num- 
ber of  offenses  in  each  case  suggests  pretty  plainly  how  very  bad  things 
must  be  in  the  German  army  before  they  are  noticed  as  exceptional. 

The  Military  Court  expressed  the  opinion  that  Franzky  had  behaved 
with  the  brutality  of  a cattle  driver.  The  evidence  of  a large  number  of 
witnesses  showed  that  he  habitually  struck  his  men  with  a cudgel  or 
whip,  spat  in  their  faces,  and  tortured  them  in  every  possible  way,  being 
especially  cruel  to  Poles.  The  men  deposed  they  were  so  afraid  that 
nobody  ventured  to  complain. 

Another  sergeant  has  been  sentenced  to  one  year’s  imprisonment  for 
squirting  ink  at  ladies  in  the  street. 

Dundee  Advertiser , December  17,  1903. 

13.  Solitude , Vol.  II,  p.  284. 

14.  Soldier's  Pocket  Book , pp.  128,  134. 

15.  War  correspondent,  Daily  News. 

16.  Scribner's  Magazine , New  York,  August,  1900. 

17.  Lord  Roberts,  New  Age,  November  14,  1901. 

18.  Major  Rasch,  Times,  October  15,  1901. 

19.  Colonel  Kingscote,  Times,  January  16,  1899. 

20.  Rudyard  Kipling,  “Drums  of  the  Fore  and  Aft.” 

21.  General  Gatacre,  Norwich,  1899. 

22.  Soldier's  Pocket  Book,  pp.  4,  5,  271. 

23.  Ibid.,  p.  177. 

24.  Marriage  discouraged  : 

Permission  to  marry  Mil  not  be  granted  unless:  (a)  a vacancy  exists 
on  the  married  establishment ; (6)  the  commanding  officer  has  satisfied 
himself  as  to  the  woman’s  character;  (c)  the  soldier,  if  below  the  rank 
of  sergeant,  has  (i)  ^5  in  the  savings  bank,  (ii)  seven  years’  service, 
exclusive  of  boy’s  service,  (iii)  two  good-conduct  badges. — New  Army 
Orders,  September,  1902. 

25.  Prostitution  encouraged  : 

Extracts  from  Circular  Memorandum  sent  to  all  the  cantonments  of 
India  by  Quarter-Master  General  Chapman,  in  the  name  of  the  com- 
mander in  chief  of  the  army  in  India  (Lord  Roberts),  and  from  other 
official  documents  (see  The  Queen's  Daughters  in  India,  pp.  17-19): 

“ In  the  regimental  bazaars  it  is  necessary  to  have  a sufficient  number 
of  women,  to  take  care  that  they  are  sufficiently  attractive,  to  provide 
them  with  proper  houses,  and  above  all  to  insist  upon  means  cf  ablution 
being  always  available. 


152 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


“ If  young  soldiers  are  carefully  advised  in  regard  to  the  advantage 
of  ablution,  and  recognize  that  convenient  arrangements  exist  in  the 
regimental  bazaar  (i.e.  in  the  chakla,  or  brothel),  they  may  be  expected 
to  avoid  the  risks  involved  in  association  with  women  who  are  not  rec- 
ognized (that  is,  licensed)  by  the  regimental  authorities.” 

The  official  record  of  what  followed  as  a resoalt  of  effort  on  the  part 
of  underofficials  to  carry  out  the  instructions  of  the  commander  in 
chief  (Lord  Roberts)  is  truly  shocking,  as  might  be  expected.  The 
officer  in  command  of  the  Second  Battalion  Cheshire  Regiment  sent 
the  following  application  to  the  magistrate  of  Umballa  cantonment: 
“ Requisition  for  extra  attractive  women  for  regimental  bazaar,  in 
accordance  with  Circular  Memorandum,  21a.”" 

“ These  women’s  fares,”  it  continues,  “ by  one-horse  conveyance  from 
Umballa  to  Solon  will  be  paid  by  the  Cheshire  Regiment  on  arrival. 
Please  send  young  and  attractive  women  as  laid  down  in  Quartermaster- 
General’s  Circular,  No.  21a.”  Another  commanding  officer  writes: 
“ There  are  not  enough  women  ; they  are  not  attractive  enough.  More 
and  younger  women  are  required.”  Yet  another  commanding  officer 
writes : “ I have  ordered  the  number  of  prostitutes  to  be  increased  to 
twelve,  and  have  given  special  instructions  as  to  the  four  additional 
women  being  young  and  of  attractive  appearance.” 

26.  The  Hell  of  Harlotry: 

The  total  number  of  admissions  to  hospital  of  cases  of  venereal 
disease  amongst  the  Indian  troops  rose  in  1895  to  522  per  1000;  and 
the  number  of  men  out  of  service,  owing  to  these  maladies,  was  46  per 
thousand  per  day.  — Lord  George  Hamilton,  House  of  Commons, 
January  25,  1897. 

No  record  is  kept  of  the  sufferings  of  the  women. 

27.  Soldier's  Pocket  Book , p.  6. 

28.  New  Age , May  15  and  22,  1902. 

29.  War  against  War  in  South  Africa , p.  214. 

30.  Ibid.,  p.  219. 

31.  Horrors  perpetrated  upon  Animals  : 

(a)  Testimony  of  a trooper,  Daily  News , August  17,  1901. 

After  a day’s  rest  we  left  that  place  in  a shocking  state.  We  killed 
thousands  of  sheep,  and  put  them  in  every  house.  The  stench  in  a 
week  will  be  horrible.  It  is  to  prevent  [the  enemy]  from  returning. 

( 'b ) Testimony  of  Mr.  Lawrence  Richardson  (personal  letter). 

I had  this  confirmed  by  [officers  on  both  sides]  ; . . . told  me  how, 
having  caught  some  prisoners,  he  made  them  carry  these  rotting  car- 
casses out  of  the  houses  before  letting  them  go. 


TO  THE  SOLDIER 


153 


(c)  Testimony  of  a volunteer,  Truth , London,  December  11, 
1901. 

One  day  I saw  them  bringing  in  about  two  thousand  sheep  and 
Angora  goats,  which  they  got  in  a heap  and  told  off  a lot  of  niggers  and 
soldiers  to  kill.  They  got  sticks  and  stones  and  other  primitive  weapons, 
and  started  to  bash  into  them.  About  five  o’clock  the  men  went  back 
again  to  their  squads.  At  eight  half  of  the  “dead  flock”  were  standing 
up  again,  some  with  horns  smashed  off,  some  with  eyes  gouged  out, 
others  with  injured  backs,  many  tongueless.  About  this  time  I saw  a 
lot  of  niggers,  armed  with  sticks,  going  down  to  do  the  job  over  again, 
and  until  morning  the  air  was  filled  with  the  sound  of  the  beating  of 
sticks  and  the  shrieks  of  maimed  goats  and  sheep. 

32.  “ War’s  Hellish  Panorama,”  New  Age,  November  22,  1900. 

The  scenes  I have  witnessed  during  the  three  days  since  the  steamer 
left  Blagovestschensk  are  horrible  beyond  all  powers  of  description ; it 
is  the  closing  tableau  of  a fearful  human  tragedy.  What  I have  seen  is 
nothing  compared  to  what  others  must  have  witnessed.  Two  thousand 
persons  were  deliberately  drowned  at  Morxo,  2000  at  Rahe,  and  8000  in 
and  around  Blagovestschensk:  a total  of  12,000  human  beings.  Twelve 
thousand  corpses  were  encumbering  this  river,  among  which  were  thou- 
sands of  women  and  children.  Navigation  was  all  but  impossible  last 
week.  Every  moment  the  boat  had  to  plow  her  way  through  a tangled, 
mangled  mass  of  corpses  strung  and  lashed  together  by  their  long  hair; 
the  river’s  banks  were  literally  covered  with  them,  and  in  the  curves  of  the 
winding  stream  were  to  be  seen  dark,  putrid,  smelling  masses  of  human 
flesh  and  bone  surging  and  swaying  in  the  steamer’s  wake  and  wash.  In 
vain  the  captain  ordered  “ Full  speed  ahead”;  the  sight,  the  smell  was 
ever  with  us.  This  is  Russian  work.  But  a Reuter's  telegram  tells  us 
that  several  Russian  papers  “comment  indignantly  upon  the  acts  of  vio- 
lence, destruction,  pillage,  and  profanation,”  committed  by  German  forces 
in  China.  And,  indeed,  letters  from  German  soldiers  at  the  front  are  sad 
enough  reading.  The  Berlin  correspondent  of  The  Morjiing  Leader  tells 
us  that  letters  are  published  which  describe  the  men  as  reveling  in  the 
cruelties  mentioned  in  the  previous  accounts:  “They  talk  of  ‘tickling 
fourteen  Chinamen’  with  bayonets,  of  giving  eight  more  ‘blue  beans  (i.e. 
bullets)  to  swallow,’  and  similar  cold-blooded  atrocities.  Our  boat, 
loaded  with  about  fifteen  tons,  is  towed  by  Chinamen.  When  the  China- 
man refuses  to  pull  he  is  belabored  with  a bamboo  stick  or  simply  shot 
down.  We  stop  at  the  villages  and  towns  on  the  way  and  take  what- 
ever we  want,  — fowls,  eggs,  pigeons,  grapes,  etc. ; if  the  Chinamen  show 
signs  of  objecting  we  fix  our  bayonets.  One  man  can  easily  shoot  a 
hundred  Chinese;  when  you  aim  at  them  they  fall  on  their  knees  and 


154 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


shout  ‘ Leidi,  leidi,  leidi.’  There  are  thousands  of  corpses  floating  about 
in  the  river,  and  the  stench  is  awful.”  The  same  journal  “also  gives 
currency  to  a letter  from  a China  warrior  in  Pekin  who  wrote  that  his 
battalion  was  ordered  to  bind  the  Chinese  prisoners  together  by  their 
pigtails  and  shoot  them.” 

33.  Professional  v.  Ethical  View  of  Warfare: 

The  following  appeared  in  The  Tablet , London  (Cardinal 
Vaughan’s  organ),  for  January  5,  1901. 

Sir:  Under  the  heading  “Letters  from  the  Front,”  you  print  in  your 
issue  of  last  Saturday  an  incident  that  I think  calls  for  some  comment. 
The  writer  — presumably  an  English  officer — calls  it  “a  good  story,” 
and  is  evidently  proud  of  it;  yet  it  is  actually  sickening  in  its  cowardice 
and  brutality. 

A Boer  fought  for  his  side  until  the  kopje  where  he  stood  was  taken. 
He  then  threw  down  his  rifle  and  asked  for  his  life,  and  for  answer  got 
a coarse  jibe,  and  was  spitted,  unarmed,  on  the  bayonet  of  an  English 
soldier.  May  I ask  if  this  is  not  a case  of  foul  and  cowardly  murder? 

It  is  said  that  the  soldier  was  a Connaught  Ranger.  I am  sorry  if  it 
is  so,  but  I daresay  you  will  find  brutal  blackguards  in  an  Irish  as  well 
as  in  an  English  regiment  in  whom  the  instincts  of  the  wild  beast  are 
roused  by  war  ; but  it  is  surprising  to  observe  such  a deadening  of  the 
moral  sense  amongst  the  officers  of  the  army  as  that  they  send  around 
as  “a  good  story”  amongst  themselves,  a deed  which  is  only  worthy  of 
savages.  But  what  is  most  surprising  of  all  is  that  you,  a Catholic 
journalist,  should  so  far  forget  the  very  elements  of  Catholic  principles 
and  Christian  feeling  as  to  publish,  evidently  with  exultation,  so  abomi- 
nable a crime. 

Perhaps  it  may  assist  you  to  see  this  foul  deed  as  others  see  it  if  you 
ask  yourself,  What  more  right  had  the  English  soldier  to  insult  and 
murder  that  single,  unarmed  Boer,  who  surrendered,  than  De  La  Rey 
would  have  had  to  put  a bullet  through  the  brain  of  one  of  the  officers 
of  the  Northumberland  Regiment  who  surrendered  the  other  day  ? Is 
it  the  code  that  Englishmen  are  to  get  quarter — and  goodness  knows 
they  have  sought  it  often  enough  for  glory  in  this  war  — but  they  are 
not  to  give  it  ? 

In  requesting  you  to  publish  this  letter  I have  to  say  that  my  pur- 
pose in  writing  it  is  to  undo,  as  far  as  one  ecclesiastic  may,  the  scandal 
which  I believe  you  are  giving,  as  the  editor  of  a journal  which  is  almost 
officially  Catholic,  by  the  savage  and  ruthless  tone  which  you  have  taken 
towards  brave  men  who  are  making  as  glorious  a stand  for  freedom  as 
the  history  of  the  world  records. — I am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

Edward  Thomas,  Bishop  of  Limerick. 


Christmas  Eve,  1900. 


TO  THE  SOLDIER 


155 


34.  A volunteer,  Dundee  Evening  Telegraph,  January  26,  1901. 

35.  Special  correspondent,  Manchester  Guardian,  May  8,  1901. 

36.  George  Griffith,  Daily  Mail,  London. 

37.  Charles  Williams,  Morning  Leader. 

38.  The  War  God  as  a Coward  — Witnesses: 

(a)  Captain  Ritchie. 

V.R.  — Public  Notice 

It  is  hereby  notified  for  information  that  unless  the  men  at  present 
on  commando  belonging  to  families  in  the  town  and  district  of  Kru- 
gersdorp  surrender  themselves  and  hand  in  their  arms  to  the  Imperial 
authorities  by  20th  July,  the  whole  of  their  property  will  be  confiscated 
and  their  families  turned  out  destitute  and  homeless. 

By  order, 

G.  H.  M.  Ritchie,  Capt.  K.  Horse, 

Dist.  Supt.  Police. 

Krugersdorp,  9th  July,  1900. 

(h)  General  Hamilton,  November  1,  1900. 

The  town  of  Ventersburg  has  been  cleared  of  supplies  and  partly 
burnt,  and  the  farms  in  the  vicinity  destroyed  on  account  of  the  fre- 
quent attacks  on  the  railway  line  in  the  neighborhood.  The  Boer 
women  and  children  who  are  left  behind  should  apply  to  the  Boer  com- 
mandants for  food,  who  will  supply  them  unless  they  wish  to  see  them 
starve.  No  supplies  will  be  sent  from  the  railway  to  the  town. 

(c)  “General  X,”  December,  1900. 

You  were  given  a week’s  supplies,  at  the  end  of  which  time  you  were 
informed  that  you  would  have  to  find  your  own  food.  Your  men  are 
still  fighting,  and  if  the  women  and  children  want  food,  they  had  better 
get  it  from  the  Boers,  or  make  their  relations  surrender.  You  will  not 
be  given  food  of  any  sort  by  us. 

39.  The  Soldier's  Pocket  Book,  pp.  287,  317,  35 1,  375,  300,  301. 

40.  Daily  News,  quoted  by  The  Coming  Day,  London. 

41.  The  Soldier's  Pocket  Book,  p.  169. 

42.  Rev.  Father  Timoney,  Sydney  Catholic  Press. 

43.  Porter  Smith,  New  West?ni7ister . 

44.  Truth,  August,  1902. 

45.  Soldier’s  letter,  Sydney  Telegraph. 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


156 

46.  New  Age,  February  12,  1903. 

Organized  Looting,  Natal  Mercury,  September  27,  1901  : 

Waldon’s  Scouts, 

Headquarters,  Platrand,  Transvaal. 

A few  good  men  required  to  join  above  corps.  Maximum  term  of 
service,  three  months. 

Seventy-five  per  cent  of  all  loot  taken  divided  among  officers  and 
men.  Horses  provided  by  government. 

Good  profits  assured.  Early  application  for  membership  necessary. 
Vacancies  rapidly  filling. 

Full  particulars  from  William  H.  Waldon, 

O.  C.  Waldon’s  Scouts, 
Platrand. 

Or  from  T.  H.  P.  Moncrieff, 

Newcastle,  Natal. 

47.  Concord , May,  1903. 

48.  Peace  and  Goodwill  (1903),  p.  85. 

49.  The  River  IVar,  Winston  S.  Churchill. 

50.  Hull  Daily  Mail. 

51.  The  Soldier's  Pocket  Book,  pp.  6,  7,  1 16,  123,  190. 
Degradation  of  Men  into  Soldiers  : 

Testimony  of  a colonist,  Birmhigham  Daily  Gazette. 

Now  that  we  are  getting  a respectable  crowd  of  Tommies  here,  there 
will  be  some  tall  work,  and  up  to  now  there  has  just  been  sufficient  done 
to  whet  Tommy’s  feeling  for  revenge.  And  you  talk  of  butchers  — you 
want  to  see  Tommy  on  the  war  path  to  realize  what  men  are,  and  let 
him  loose  on  any  foe,  God  help  him  (the  foe),  for  I never  saw  such 
demons.  To  see  him  at  home  and  in  peaceful  times  and  see  him  at 
work  you  would  not  recognize  him  as  the  same  man,  if  “ man”  you  can 
call  him.  He  fights  like  a very  devil;  drinks  like  a fish;  thieves  with 
the  best;  and  swears  lumpy  and  strong.  Even  our  own  people  have  had 
such  a lesson  of  Tommy’s  qualities  that  they  are  anxiously  waiting  to 
see  what  he  will  do  to  a foe.  He  smashes  and  wrecks  everything  that 
he  comes  across,  steals  everything  that  he  can  lay  his  hands  on,  breaks 
into  houses  and  ransacks  everything  from  floor  to  ceiling,  eats  up  all 
and  sundry, —sheep,  pigs,  fowls,  fruit,  etc.  Oh,  he ’s  a beauty  ! During 
our  confabs  on  them  I stick  up  for  him,  on  the  lines  that  if  you  want 
some  material  to  fight  for  you,  you  must  put  up  with  the  other  side  of 
the  game.  A fine  gentleman  would  not  do  Tommy’s  work  so  thoroughly 
as  a rough  would,  and  does — if  at  all. 


TO  THE  SOLDIER 


157 


52.  The  Soldier's  Pocket  Book , pp.  1 15,  387. 

53.  Reuter,  May,  1904. 

54.  Soldier’s  letter,  New  Age , August  9,  1900. 

55.  A trooper,  Reynolds'  Newspaper,  February  3,  1901. 

56.  The  Soldier's  Pocket  Book,  p.  414. 

57.  H.  W.  Nevinson,  war  correspondent,  Daily  Chronicle, 
London,  November  20,  1899.  For  ampler  confirmation  see  War 
against  War  in  South  Africa,  pp.  116,  1 1 7,  120,  137,  139,  204, 
and  No.  29,  p.  7. 

Take  no  Prisoners.  — Witnesses: 

(a)  A British  officer  in  command,  January,  1901. 

Lord  Kitchener,  having  as  he  thought  caged  his  enemy,  sent  secret 
instructions  to  the  troops  to  take  no  prisoners  ; that  is,  if  the  Boers, 
surrounded  on  all  sides,  find  themselves  unable  to  resist  and  hoist  the 
white  flag  as  a token  of  surrender,  they  are  to  be  shot  down  to  the  last 
man. 

But  I will  be  more  definite.  I received  the  order  personally  from  a 
general  of  the  highest  rank  and  holding  one  of  the  first  positions  in 
South  Africa;  and  the  order  was  repeated  twice,  so  that  there  could  be 
no  mistake.  Not  only  this,  but  I found  that  all  the  other  senior  officers 
were  aware  of  the  order ; what  their  private  opinions  and  intentions 
were  I do  not  know,  but  I heard  no  word  of  condemnation. 

(h)  Lieutenant  G.  R.  Witton. 

S.S.  Runic,  October  20,  1904. 

Dear  Mr.  Easton  : I have  heard  that  it  has  been  reported,  much  to 
my  prejudice,  that  I was  concerned  in  the  murder  of  the  German  mis- 
sionary Hesse.  I wish  to  give  this  an  emphatic  denial,  as  at  the  time  of 
Hesse’s  murder  I was  from  twelve  to  twenty  miles  distant.  Who  mur- 
dered him  is  a mystery  to  me,  but  at  the  time  I was  under  the  impression 
that  he  was  most  probably  shot  by  a Kaffir.  As  regards  the  shooting  of 
the  Boer  prisoners,  the  only  man  I shot  was  one  man  I shot  in  self- 
defense.  The  orders  to  take  no  prisoners  came  from  headquarters  and 
were  given  to  Morant  by  Captain  Hunt,  who  in  due  course  passed  them 
on.  Had  Hunt  and  Morant  not  obeyed,  they  were  liable  to  be  shot 
themselves. 

(c)  New  Age,  April  24,  1902. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  in  the  mind  of  one  who  has  read  such  reports 
of  the  case  as  have  reached  us  that  the  massacre  of  prisoners  by  irregu- 
lar corps  has  been  a common  occurrence.  Perhaps  the  most  damning 


158 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


evidence  of  the  way  in  which  these  irregular  corps  have  acted  was  that 
offered  in  defense  of  the  accused.  Lieutenant  Hamman  testified  that 
when  he  was  a trooper  in  the  Queensland  Mounted  Infantry  on  one 
occasion  his  squadron  took  some  prisoners  and  was  reprimanded  by 
Colonel  Craddock  for  taking  them.  It  was  in  evidence  that  Brabant’s 
Horse  received  orders  to  take  no  prisoners.  Lieutenant  Philip  declared 
that  the  Queensland  Mounted  Infantry  were  in  disgrace  on  one  occasion 
for  bringing  in  prisoners  caught  sniping.  Instructions  were  given  in 
Colonel  Garrett’s  column  that  Boers  taken  in  khaki  were  to  be  shot. 
In  his  defense  Morant  stated  that  Captain  Hunt  had  quoted  to  him  as 
precedents  for  not  taking  prisoners  the  action  of  Kitchener’s  and  Strath- 
cona’s  Horse.  The  judge  advocate  did  not  question  the  evidence;  he 
merely  rejected  the  plea  of  justification.  “ The  contention  that  other 
corps  had  done  similarly  did  not  make  two  wrongs  right.” 

(d)  Various  : Methods  of  Barbarism,  p.  23  ; 

Private  C.  Chadwick,  the  Third  Grenadier  Guards. 

The  Boers  cry  for  mercy  when  they  know  they  have  no  chance  of 
shooting  you  down,  but  we  take  no  notice  of  the  crying,  and  stick  the 
bayonet  through  them. 

Private  G.  Washington,  of  the  Second  Battalion  of  the  Cold- 
streams,  says  of  the  four  battles  fought  by  Lord  Methuen  : 

In  the  last  two  fights  we  used  the  bayonet  freely,  as  we  advanced, 
and  the  Boers  appealed  for  mercy  in  vain. 

Private  W.  S.  Tarrant,  writing  from  Estcourt  to  his  parents. 

When  the  Boers  are  caught  they  beg  for  mercy,  but  they  have  not 
been  getting  much  from  us  of  late,  only  from  the  officers. 

Driver  F.  Clark,  the  Sixty-Fifth  Howitzer  Battery. 

I know  our  troops  won’t  have  any  mercy  on  them.  It  is  only  the 
officers  that  stop  the  men  from  killing  them  right  out.  I have  seen  a 
few  put  out  of  their  misery. 

Montreal  Herald. 

Letter  from  Bert  Holland,  Canadian  Mounted  Rifles,  to  his  parents 
in  Ottawa  describes  the  shooting  of  the  “ worst  sniper  ” in  the  district. 
Driven  into  a boggy  spot,  and  his  horse  getting  stuck,  “ he  pitched  his  rifle 
away  and  threw  up  his  hands,  supplicating  for  mercy.  The  boys  rode 
up  within  one  hundred  feet  of  the  old  wretch,  and  commenced  firing. 
At  first  they  shot  him  through  the  arms  and  legs,  then  through  the 
stomach,  and  when  they  thought  they  had  sufficiently  punished  him  they 


TO  THE  SOLDIER 


159 


put  a volley  through  his  heart,  fairly  riddling  it.  Then  they  proceeded 
to  his  house,  where  they  found  his  son  hiding  under  the  bed  with  a 
bandolier  on  and  a rifle  in  his  hand.  They  took  him  into  camp,  and  the 
chances  are  he  will  be  shot.” 

The  right  to  demand  quarter  at  the  last  moment  was  denied  by 
General  Ian  Hamilton  in  a speech  at  Bath,  reported  in  the  Times  of 
March  n.  Describing  the  final  scene  at  Elandslaagte,  General  Hamil- 
ton said  that  the  Boers  had  made  a desperate  and  determined  defense. 
“ But  when  our  men  came  right  up  to  them  they  stood  up.  Of  course 
they  had  by  all  rules  forfeited  their  lives  then."  But  he  went  on  to  say 
that  they  did  n’t  use  the  bayonet,  which  he  seemed  to  regard  as  an 
exceptional  and  altogether  uncovenanted  mercy  on  their  part. 

A correspondent  writing  in  the  Daily  News  on  this  subject  claimed 
that  the  point  of  view  of  General  Hamilton,  and  indeed  of  all  soldiers 
as  far  as  the  writer  knew,  was  expressed  in  a passage  written  by  a cor- 
respondent who  signed  himself  J.  B.  A.,  in  which  he  described  General 
French’s  ride  into  Kimberley.  He  said: 

“When  the  Boers  had  emptied  a few  saddles,  they  put  up  a white 
flag;  but  the  work  of  cavalry  cannot  be  stopped  at  the  goal  itself.  All  the 
Boers  there  — some  say  thirty-two,  some  say  thirty-seven- — were  spitted." 
The  writer  goes  on  to  defend  this. 

Massacre  of  Wounded. — Witnesses: 

(a)  R.  L.  Bridgman,  Loyal  Traitors , p.  129. 

General  MacArthur’s  official  report  of  the  Filipino  casualties  between 
May  5,  1900,  and  June  30,  1901,  included  the  terrible  list  of  3854  killed 
and  1193  wounded,  while  of  the  Americans  345  were  killed  and  490 
wounded.  His  report  for  the  period  between  November  1,  1899,  and 
September  1, 1900,  was  that  3227  Filipinos  were  killed  and  694  wounded. 
During  the  same  time  there  were  268  Americans  killed  and  750  wounded. 
General  Wheaton  gave  the  casualties  for  northern  Luzon  for  April,  May, 
June,  and  July  as  1014  Filipinos  killed  and  95  wounded,  while  the  Ameri- 
cans had  36  killed  and  63  wounded.  For  the  last  four  months  of  1899 
the  Americans  had  69  killed  and  302  wounded  in  the  Luzon  campaign. 
In  the  first  four  months  of  1900  they  had  130  killed  and  325  wounded. 
The  Filipino  casualties  for  May,  June,  July,  and  August  of  the  same 
year,  in  the  same  campaign,  were  1313  killed  and  222  wounded.  John 
T.  McCutcheon,  who  is  quoted  as  a reliable  witness,  wrote  under  date 
of  Manila,  April  20,  1899: 

“ There  has  now  begun  a time  of  terrific  slaughter  ; for,  since  the  insur- 
gents have  adopted  their  guerrilla  methods  of  attacking  weak  parties  of 
Americans  and  boloing  men  who  get  outside  of  our  lines,  a feeling  of 
intense  bitterness  has  sprung  up  among  our  soldiers.  It  is  the  old  cry, 


i6o 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


1 The  only  good  Indian  is  a dead  one,’  repeated  with  a deep  thirst  for 
revenge  behind  it  to  strengthen  it.  It  is  the  spirit  of  ‘Take  no  prison- 
ers ’ and  ‘ Kill  everything  in  sight  ’ that  has  accounted  for  some  of  the 
terrific  slaughters  that  have  occurred  during  the  last  two  months.” 

(b)  Winston  S.  Churchill,  The  River  War. 

There  was  a very  general  impression  that  the  fewer  the  prisoners  the 
greater  would  be  the  satisfaction  of  the  commander.  The  unmeasured 
abuse  heaped  upon  the  Dervishes  by  the  newspapers,  and  the  idea, 
laboriously  circulated,  that  they  were  avenging  Gordon,  led  many  of 
our  soldiers  to  think  that  it  was  quite  correct  to  regard  our  enemy  as 
vermin,  unfit  to  live.  The  result  was  that  many  wounded  Dervishes 
were  killed.  . . . The  statement  that  “the  wounded  Dervishes  received 
every  delicacy  and  attention  ” is  so  utterly  devoid  of  truth  that  it  tram 
scends  the  limits  of  mendacity  and  passes  into  the  realms  of  the  ridiculous- 

For  fuller  details,  see  War  against  War , p.  6. 

58.  Soldier,  Morning  Leader,  November  13,  1900. 

59.  Sir  Frederick  Treves,  May,  1900. 

60.  Herald  of  Peace,  May,  1904. 

61.  Lord  Wolseley,  ibid.,  January  1,  1904. 

62.  An  officer,  Central  News. 

St.  Petersburg,  December  19,  1904. 

The  Russky  Slovoe  publishes  the  following  description  of  the  Russian 
retreat  on  Mukden  by  M.  Memirovitch  Danchenko  : 

“ I remember  this  retreat  as  a nightmare.  Nerves  are  completely  shat- 
tered. The  men  start  and  become  uneasy  for  the  least  thing.  Hill  and 
dale  remain  in  the  power  of  the  enemy.  We  say  farewell  to  them  the 
while  we  urge  on  our  exhausted  steeds.  Without  exaggeration,  one  has 
a veritable  craving  for  sleep,  for  forgetfulness,  for  the  loss  of  conscience 
and  memory.  Riding  past  the  mute  witnesses  of  the  horrors  which  had 
just  happened,  past  the  dead  bodies  lying  all  along  the  road,  we  envy 
those  who  are  already  blind  and  deaf.  For  them  no  more  defeat,  no 
more  torment  upon  torment,  no  more  hopes  doomed  to  disappointment, 
no  more  need  to  write  home  descriptions  of  our  shame,  finding  some 
explanation  for  it  to  allow  those  who  are  dear  to  us  to  accept  our  retreat. 
Mukden  is  ankle  deep  in  mud.  It  is  a pestilent  ocean,  where,  like  un- 
happy ships,  are  to  be  run  strange  and  clumsy  vehicles,  drawn  by  men  — 
rickshaws;  and  at  this  moment  I hated  the  two-wheeled  instrument  of 
torture.  The  ocean  of  mud  was  to  me  a hell,  and  I felt  a hatred  of  the 
unfortunate  Chinamen  dropping  with  fatigue.  We  bit  our  lips  and  went 
whither  we  could.  We  stretched  ourselves  out  for  a deep  sleep,  from 
which  we  awoke  with  a horrible  thought, — ‘ We  have  retreated  again,’ 


TO  THE  SOLDIER 


l6l 


— and  then  began  once  more  the  sorrowful  probing  of  one’s  moral 
wounds.  Comrades  were  awakened  to  continue  the  bitter,  violent  argu- 
ment, almost  a quarrel,  well  knowing  that  each  was  longing  to  burst 
into  tears.  With  a full  knowledge  of  the  situation,  I really  did  not 
expect  a decisive  victory,  at  all  events  I had  my  doubts;  but  it  seemed 
to  me  nevertheless  as  if  something  terrible  and  unforeseen  had  struck 
my  heart.”  — Press  Association  Special. 

63.  Torture  of  Prisoners  {Concord,  May,  1903)  : 

Charles  S.  Riley,  a sergeant  in  the  Twenty-Sixth  Volunteer  Infantry, 
thus  described  to  the  Senate  Committee  the  torture  of  a native  town 
officer  by  men  of  the  Eighteenth  Infantry  by  command  of  Captain 
Glynn  and  under  the  direction  of  Lieutenant  Conger  and  Dr.  Lyon: 

“ The  presidente  was  tied  and  placed  on  his  back  under  a water  tank 
holding  probably  one  hundred  gallons.  The  faucet  was  opened,  and  a 
stream  of  water  was  forced  down,  or  allowed  to  run  down,  his  throat. 
His  throat  was  held  so  he  could  not  prevent  swallowing  the  water,  so 
that  he  had  to  allow  the  water  to  run  into  his  stomach.  He  was  directly 
under  the  faucet,  with  his  mouth  held  wide  open.  When  he  was  filled 
with  water,  it  was  forced  out  of  him  by  pressing  a foot  on  his  stomach 
or  else  with  the  hands.  This  continued  from  five  to  fifteen  minutes. 

This  unhappy  man  was  taken  down  and  asked  more  questions.  He 
again  refused  to  answer,  and  then  was  treated  again.  One  of  the  men. 
of  the  Eighteenth  Infantry  went  to  his  saddle  and  took  a syringe  from 
the  saddlebag,  and  another  man  was  sent  for  a can  of  water  holding 
about  five  gallons.  Then  a syringe  was  inserted,  one  end  in  the  water 
and  the  other  end  in  his  mouth.  This  time  he  was  not  bound,  but  he 
was  held  by  four  or  five  men  and  the  water  was  forced  into  his  mouth 
from  the  can  through  the  syringe.  The  syringe  did  not  seem  to  have 
the  desired  effect,  and  the  doctor  ordered  a second  one.  The  man  got 
a second  syringe,  and  that  was  inserted  in  his  nose.  Then  the  doctor 
ordered  some  salt,  and  a handful  of  salt  was  procured  and  thrown  into 
the  water.  Two  syringes  were  then  in  operation.  The  interpreter  stood 
over  him  in  the  meantime,  asking  for  this  second  information  that  was 
desired.  Finally  he  gave  in  and  gave  the  information.” 

On  the  strength  of  this  confession  a town  having  12,000  inhabitants 
was  burned  down. 

See  also  Loyal  Traitors,  by  R.  L.  Bridgman,  p.  245,  and  War 
against  War  in  South  Africa,  No.  29,  p.  7. 

64.  Officer,  Tunes,  November  23,  1899. 

65.  Lord  Kitchener,  Report,  September  9,  1901. 

66.  Narracooste  Herald  (South  Africa),  June,  1901. 


i62 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


67.  Violation  of  Women.  — Testimonies: 

(а)  J.  M.  Robertson,  Manchester  Guardian,  December  15, 
1900. 

A man  who  dared  to  tell  them  that  in  an  army  of  250,000  men  there 
had  been  no  serious  crime,  was  devoid  of  common  sense.  He  had  in 
his  possession  an  affidavit  signed  by  two  Dutch  women  who  underwent 
the  last  extremity  of  outrage  at  the  hands  of  British  troops.  This  was 
admitted,  because  the  soldiers  were  punished. 

(б)  War  correspondent,  Morning  Herald  (Australia),  Novem- 
ber 20,  1900. 

On  the  way  to  my  mount  there  had  to  be  noticed  a girl  of  fifteen  or 
sixteen,  delicately  molded,  leaning  against  the  doorpost  of  a barn,  and 
weeping  as  though  her  heart  would  break.  As  I looked,  a tall,  well- 
set-up  trooper  went  by.  The  girl,  evidently  mistaking  him  for  an  officer, 
approached  him,  and  between  her  sobs  struggled  with  her  English  to 
make  a complaint.  The  reply  she  got  was  an  insult  foul  and  brutal. 
The  actual  words  were  so  many  meaningless  sounds  to  her,  but  she 
knew  she  had  received  a rebuff.  She  sank  to  the  dust  at  the  man’s 
feet,  with  that  peculiar  half  sob,  half  moan,  that  tells  the  depth  of  femi- 
nine anguish  has  been  sounded. 

( c ) New  Age,  November  27,  1902. 

Lord  George  Hamilton  had  a ghastly  story  to  tell  in  the  Blouse  of 
Commons  on  Friday.  The  Ninth  Lancers,  after  serving  in  South  Africa, 
returned  to  India  in  April  last.  On  the  night  of  their  arrival  they  were 
entertained  by  another  regiment  at  the  station.  The  same  night  a native 
was  killed.  Before  his  death  the  man  stated  that  he  had  been  assaulted 
by  two  men  of  the  Ninth  Lancers,  because  he  failed  to  find  native  women 
for  them.  The  matter  seems  to  have  been  taken  very  coolly;  it  was  not 
till  some  days  later  that  inquiry  was  instituted.  This  inquiry  was  stated 
by  Lord  George  Hamilton  to  have  been  “perfunctory.”  A second  inquiry 
brought  no  result.  The  crime  has  not  been  brought  home  to  any  one. 
A few  days  later  another  native  was  killed.  In  these  circumstances  the 
whole  regiment  has  been  punished.  The  sympathy  of  the  “Service” 
members  was  clearly  with  the  regiment. 

See  also  War  against  War  in  Soicth  Africa,  No.  29,  p.  6,  and 
What  is  now  being  done  i7i  Soitth  Africa  (Mr.  Stead). 

68.  Glasgow  Herald,  December  18,  1899. 

69.  W 0 Iverh a mp to n Express,  January  12,  1901. 

70.  Letters  to  Otago  Witness  and  Zeeham  Herald,  June,  1901. 

71.  Mortiing  Leader,  January  19,  1901. 


TO  THE  SOLDIER 


163 


72.  A “Pacified”  Country  ( Concord , May,  1903): 

“They  never  rebel  in  northern  Luzon,”  wrote  a Republican  con- 
gressman who  visited  the  islands  in  the  summer  of  1901,  “because 
there  isn’t  any  one  there  to  rebel.  The  country  was  marched  over  and 
cleaned  out  in  a most  resolute  manner.  The  good  Lord  in  heaven  only 
knows  the  number  of  Filipinos  that  were  put  under  ground.  Our  soldiers 
took  no  prisoners,  they  kept  no  records  ; they  simply  swept  the  coun- 
try, and  wherever  and  whenever  they  could  get  ahold  of  a Filipino  they 
killed  him.” 

73.  Miss  Cronje,  Times , November  17,  1900. 

74.  Lieutenant  Morrison,  New  Age , May  28,  1903. 

75.  Captain  March  Phillipps,  With  Rimington,  p.  187. 

76.  Tottenham  Herald \ December  12,  1901. 

77.  E.  W.  Smith,  Morning  Leader,  May  21,  1901. 

78.  Lord  Camden,  House  of  Lords,  1778. 

Cowardice  of  War  : 

Rev.  Father  Timoney,  M or ning  Leader. 

Then  began  the  most  diabolical  work  I have  yet  witnessed.  Every 
house  in  the  valley,  probably  twenty  in  all,  was  burned  to  the  ground. 
Women  and  children  stood  in  groups,  the  children  rending  the  air  with 
their  cries.  They  were  allowed  to  move  their  furniture  before  the  match 
was  put  to  the  building.  The  women  were  admirable.  Not  a tear 
bedewed  their  eyes.  They  stood  there  defiant,  neatly  dressed  in  black, 
with  snow-white  aprons  and  bonnets.  It  was  only  when  I said  a few 
sympathetic  words  to  one  woman  that  she  melted  into  tears.  “You,” 
she  said,  “do  not  approve  of  this?”  “I  loathe  it,”  was  my  reply.  “I 
am,”  she  said,  “a  British  subject  from  the  Protectorate.  We  rented 
this  farm  from  an  Englishman,  to  whom  it  belongs.  We  have  nothing 
in  the  world  but  these  crops  which  your  horses  have  destroyed,  and  — 
God  help  us  ! ” I asked  her  the  age  of  her  baby,  whom  she  carried  in 
her  arms.  “ One  month  yesterday,”  she  replied,  showing  me  the  inno- 
cent face  of  the  infant.  “ Will  you,”  she  said,  “try  to  save  my  house 
from  the  fire?”  “I  shall  do  so  at  once,”  I answered;  and  I kept  my 
promise,  but  my  pleading  was  of  no  avail.  The  woman  stood  there  on 
the  green  sward,  one  child  in  her  arms  and  three  others  hanging  to  her 
skirts,  while  her  home  was  falling  into  ruins  and  the  flames  rose  forty 
feet  high. 

I told  the  heroic  woman  that  I had  tried  to  save  the  house.  “Will 
you  shake  hands  with  me?”  was  her  reply.  I did  so  right  heartily,  and 
she  called  me  aside  to  show  me  the  relics  of  a new  white  apron.  “ It 
was  from  this,”  she  said,  “ I tore  the  bandages  for  one  of  your  wounded 


164 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


men  (Beaumont).  I carried  him  in  my  arms  from  the  field,  and  band- 
aged his  arm.  He  lay  on  my  bed  until  the  blankets  were  sodden  in 
blood.  And  this,”  she  said,  “is  my  reward”- — waving  her  hand  towards 
the  house  in  flames;  “this  is  the  work  of  the  Australians.  They  are 
not  soldiers,  they  are  house  burners  and  looters.”  I begged  to  disagree 
with  the  woman,  but  her  face  was  now  livid,  and  her  eyes  sparkling 
with  rage.  “ My  boy  Otto,”  she  continued,  placing  her  hand  on  his 
head,  “ is  only  ten  years  old,  but  I trust  I shall  live  to  see  him  handle  a 
rifle,  and  avenge  this  insult  on  his  mother.” 

The  next  house  belonged  to  the  man  whom  the  sentry  shot  on 
Thursday  night.  “ My  husband  was  shot  by  one  of  your  men  last  Thurs- 
day night,”  she  said  ; “I  am  left  alone  with  these  four  children.  Surely 
the  blood  of  my  husband  should  wipe  out  the  crime  of  which  he  was 
guilty — fighting  for  his  country.”  Her  pleadings  were  in  vain.  Her 
house  was  burned  down,  and  she  looked  on  proud  and  tearless,  the 
beau  ideal  of  a valiant  woman.  But  why  should  I weary  you  by  repeat- 
ing the  harassing,  heart-rending  scenes  I witnessed  that  day  ? There 
were  probably  one  hundred  women  and  children  left  homeless  in  one 
afternoon.  They  were  ordered  to  leave  the  wooded  valley  and  cross  the 
Molopo  River,  there  to  live  on  the  treeless  plain. 

The  wiseacres  say  that  this  vandalism  will  terminate  the  war.  My 
opinion,  shared  by  every  intelligent  man,  is  that  it  will  prolong  the  war 
indefinitely.  I might  refer  to  the  open  theft  which  is  called  looting,  and 
which  is  daily  indulged  in  by  our  troops.  The  Turks  would  shrink  from 
such  barbarism.  Even  the  Kaffirs  do  not  burn  houses.  And  I am  not 
giving  hearsays.  I am  just  recounting  in  a hurried  way  a part  of  the 
horrors  I have  myself  seen. 

79.  Herald  of  Peace,  October  1,  1903. 

80.  Dundee  Advertiser,  June  20,  1904. 

Testimony  of  John  S.  Shearston  (Sydney),  Alliance  Record : 

Before  the  entertainment  was  half  through  it  was  evident  that  a 
grave  mistake  had  been  perpetrated,  and  by  9.30  his  Worship  the  Mayor 
suggested  the  closing  of  the  affair  to  prevent  more  serious  consequences. 
By  10  o’clock  the  “patriotic”  work  of  the  committee  was  nearly  com- 
plete. ...  It  was  a sad  and  humiliating  sight  to  see  many  of  our  gallant 
soldier  visitors  lying  helpless  by  the  wayside  in  Hyde  Park  and  Moore 
Park  Road,  having  failed  in  their  efforts  to  reach  their  barracks,  in  many 
instances  with  their  splendid  uniforms  lying  in  the  dirt.  . . . Although  I 
have  lived  and  labored  among  them  for  over  a quarter  of  a century  in 
this  city,  and  have  witnessed  in  the  old  days  awful  scenes  of  debauchery, 
I have  never  at  any  time  seen  such  a shocking  and  outrageous  exhibi- 
tion of  drunkenness. 


TO  THE  SOLDIER 


165 


81.  Herald  of  Peace,  June  1,  1903. 

82.  Daily  Mail,  April  24,  1903. 

Testimony  of  Dundee  Advertiser,  October  25,  1904: 

A somewhat  singular  plea  of  extenuating  circumstances  was  put  for- 
ward by  an  agent  in  a case  of  housebreaking  which  came  before  Sheriff 
Davidson  at  a pleading  diet  of  Glasgow  Sheriff  Criminal  Court  yester- 
day. The  accused,  a young  fellow  of  respectable  appearance,  acknowl- 
edged breaking  into  a house  in  Pollokshields  and  stealing  a large  quantity 
of  articles.  The  agent  explained  that  accused  had  been  in  a regiment  of 
Lancers  for  eight  years,  during  which  he  had  served  through  the  South 
African  war,  taking  part  in  the  defense  of  Ladysmith  and  other  opera- 
tions. Since  leaving  the  army  he  had  been  steadily  employed,  but  on 
the  day  of  the  offense  preferred  against  him  he  had  been  drinking. 
While  under  the  influence  of  liquor  prisoner  imagined  that  he  was  still 
in  South  Africa  and  had  been  ordered  to  loot  the  house  of  a Boer.  He 
thereupon  smashed  one  of  the  windows  and  entered  the  dwelling,  where 
he  purloined  a large  number  of  articles,  timepiece  and  bronze  ornaments, 
etc.  Having  collected  the  loot,  he  put  it  into  a blanket,  but,  as  these 
doings  took  place  in  broad  daylight  and  before  the  eyes  of  interested 
spectators,  the  police  arrived  and  put  a period  to  his  operations.  His 
Lordship,  who  was  evidently  impressed  with  the  likelihood  of  the  strange 
tale,  gave  the  accused  the  benefit  of  the  First  Offenders  Act. 


. 


■ 


THE  MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR  TO 
THE  POLITICIAN 


I confess  that  I dream  of  the  day  when  an  English  statesman  shall 
arise  with  a heart  too  large  for  England ; having  courage  in  the  face  of 
his  countrymen  to  assert  of  some  suggested  policy,  — “This  is  good  for 
your  trade  ; this  is  necessary  for  your  domination  : but  it  will  vex  a 
people  hard  by ; it  will  hurt  a people  farther  off ; it  will  profit  nothing  to 
the  general  humanity:  therefore,  away  with  it  ! — it  is  not  for  you  or 
for  me.”  When  a British  minister  dares  speak  so,  and  when  a British 
public  applauds  him  speaking,  then  shall  the  nation  be  glorious,  and 
her  praise,  instead  of  exploding  from  within,  from  loud  civic  mouths, 
come  to  her  from  without,  as  all  worthy  praise  must,  from  the  alliances 

she  has  fostered  and  the  populations  she  has  saved Elizabeth 

Barrett  Browning. 


V 


THE  MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR  TO  THE 
POLITICIAN 

The  proper  aim  of  the  politician  is  — not  war,  but 
peace ; the  means  proper  to  his  aims  are  — not  arms, 
but  reason  and  moral  force ; and  his  proper  work  is  — 
not  making  war  with  whatever  success  and  acclama- 
tion, but  keeping  the  peace  with  all  the  watchfulness, 
resource,  skill,  and  energy  which,  when  the  .glove  is 
flung,  he  expects  in  his  generals  on  the  field.  When 
he  fails  to  secure  his  ends  by  pacific  means,  it  is  in 
this  age  of  easy  arbitration  a sure  sign  that  they  are 
either  not  legitimate  or  not  practicable,  or  that  he  was 
unskillful  in  the  way  he  took  to  compass  them  ; and  it 
should  never  be  permitted  him  to  secure  an  unlawful 
aim  or  cover  his  own  stupidity  by  turning  a people  into 
a collective  homicide.  The  advocate  who  has  lost  his 
case  must  generally  be  admitted  to  have  had  a bad  one 
or  to  have  advocated  a good  one  badly ; but  neither  ad- 
mission justifies  him  in  challenging  the  opposing  law- 
yer to  mortal  combat.  It  is  only  in  the  wider  sphere 
of  international  law  that  this  absurdity  and  infamy  pre- 
vails. It  is  only  in  the  case  of  disputes  between  nations 
that  a man  dares  to  incur  sin  rather  than  submit  to  a 
charge  of  error,  and  prefers  to  sacrifice  the  national 
conscience  and  his  own  to  the  supposed  interests  of  a 

169 


170  MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 

nation  rather  than  risk  the  petty  charge  of  impolicy  by 
letting  interest  go  and  cleaving  to  conscience. 

The  conflicts  of  industrial  peoples  are  made  by  their 
leaders,  whether  they  be  foreign  ministers,  party  bosses, 
or  journalists  who  mislead  them.  Before  we  fare  onward 
Carlyle  shall  fix  this  upon  our  minds  in  that  immortal 
passage  from  Sartor  which  the  twin  prophet  Ruskin 
repeated  in  his  lecture  on  “War”  to  the  young  soldiers 
of  the  Military  Academy  at  Woolwich,  of  all  places: 
“ What,  speaking  in  quite  unofficial  language,  is  the 
net  purport  and  upshot  of  war  ? To  my  own  knowl- 
edge, for  example,  there  dwell  and  toil,  in  the  British 
village  of  Dumdrudge,  usually  some  five  hundred  souls. 
From  these,  by  certain  ‘ Natural  Enemies  ’ of  the 
French,  there  are  successively  selected,  during  the 
French  war,  say  thirty  able-bodied  men  : Dumdrudge, 
at  her  own  expense,  has  suckled  and  nursed  them  : she 
has,  not  without  difficulty  and  sorrow,  fed  them  up 
to  manhood,  and  even  trained  them  to  crafts,  so  that 
one  can  weave,  another  build,  another  hammer,  and 
the  weakest  can  stand  under  thirty  stone  avoirdupois. 
Nevertheless,  amid  much  weeping  and  swearing,  they 
are  selected  ; all  dressed  in  red ; and  shipped  away,  at 
the  public  charges,  some  two-thousand  miles,  or  say 
only  to  the  south  of  Spain  ; and  fed  there  till  wanted. 
And  now  to  that  same  spot,  in  the  south  of  Spain,  are 
thirty  similar  French  artisans,  from  a French  Dum- 
drudge, in  like  manner  wending : till  at  length,  after 
infinite  effort,  the  two  parties  come  into  actual  juxta- 
position ; and  Thirty  stands  fronting  Thirty,  each  with 
a gun  in  his  hand.  Straightway  the  word  ‘ Fire  ! ’ is 


TO  THE  POLITICIAN 


171 

given  : and  they  blow  the  souls  out  of  one  another ; 
and  in  place  of  sixty  brisk  useful  craftsmen,  the  world 
has  sixty  dead  carcasses,  which  it  must  bury,  and  anew 
shed  tears  for.  Had  these  men  any  quarrel  ? Busy  as 
the  Devil  is,  not  the  smallest ! They  lived  far  enough 
apart ; were  the  entirest  strangers  ; nay,  in  so  wide  a 
Universe,  there  was  even,  by  Commerce,  some  mutual 
helpfulness  between  them.  How  then?  Simpleton! 
their  Governors  had  fallen-out ; and,  instead  of  shoot- 
ing one  another,  had  the  cunning  to  make  these  poor 
blockheads  shoot.”  When  a question  can  be  fairly 
submitted  to  a people  long  habituated  to  peaceful  in- 
dustries, they  will  be  found  to  protest  vehemently 
against  a war  policy;  to  declare  themselves  for  and 
to  crusade  zealously  on  behalf  of  peace.  But  the  war- 
like politician  thwarts  their  pacific  aims.  It  is  still  pos- 
sible for  a war-distracted  people  to  take  up  the  parable 
of  Ezekiel  and  say,  “ Thy  rowers  have  brought  thee 
into  great  waters  : the  east  wind  hath  broken  thee  in 
the  midst  of  the  seas.”  For  as  it  was  the  ruling  classes 
of  his  day  that  wrought  upon  the  passions  of  the  crowd 
and  secured  the  execution  of  the  Prince  of  Peace,  so 
it  is  the  governing  classes  who  crucify  him  afresh  and 
put  his  pacific  ideals  to  an  open  shame.  Hence  most 
of  the  troubles  of  the  modern  state.  Under  an  abso- 
lutist form  of  government  the  voiceless  and  voteless 
masses  are  compelled  to  accept  whatever  conflict  is 
thrust  upon  them  ; but  one  of  the  disappointments  of 
democracy  is  that  even  under  a representative  system 
they  are  found  powerless  to  force  their  peace  poli- 
cies upon  a militant  executive.  The  reason  is  that  they 


172 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


have  put  weapons  into  the  hands  of  governors  who  can 
always  plead  the  necessity  of  swift  and  secret  action ; 
and  the  remedy  is  to  be  found  in  destroying  entirely 
the  blood-red  chariot  of  Mars  and  yoking  the  rulers  to 
the  white  car  of  Peace.  War  can  be  destroyed  but  not 
regulated.  Cowper  saw  where  the  power  to  destroy  it 
resided,  saying, 

But  war ’s  a game,  which,  were  their  subjects  wise, 

Kings  would  not  play  at. 

War  demoralizes  the  politician  by  putting  into  his 
hands  the  godlike  power  of  life  and  death,  mere  pos- 
session of  which  leads  to  its  exercise,  and  which  can- 
not be  controlled  even  by  the  most  democratic  forms 
of  government.  In  his  private  capacity  the  politician 
is  not  less  sane  and  considerate  than  other  men  ; he 
cannot  be  entirely  blind  to  the  evils  of  a war  system, 
inhumanly  hardened  to  the  sufferings  it  involves,  or 
enamored  of  waste  and  misery,  blood  and  death ; and 
it  must  therefore  be  inferred  that  there  is  something 
in  his  official  position  which  transforms  him,  which 
sinks  principle  in  expediency,  conscience  in  interest, 
and  justice  in  a narrow  patriotism  ; something  that 
controls  him  all  the  time  that  he  imagines  he  is  con- 
trolling it.  That  thing  is  the  power  of  life  and  death. 
The  engines  of  doom  intrusted  to  his  hands  sug- 
gest uses  to  which  they  may  be  put  — such  as  greater 
prestige  or  the  acquisition  of  new  territory  ; and  the 
awful  consciousness  of  something  akin  to  omnipotence 
raises  hallucinations  in  his  feeble  mind ; he  loses  the 
sense  of  proportion  between  cause  and  effect,  offense 


TO  THE  POLITICIAN 


173 


and  punishment,  human  and  divine,  and  launches  in 
the  face  of  the  adversary  who  has  outreasoned  him 
those  powers  which  can  be  wielded  rightly  only  by  One 
who  can  create  and  destroy.  Armed  with  the  divine 
prerogative,  the  political  character  too  often  assumes 
a tone  that  makes  the  sensitive  spirit  shudder,  — a 
hardness,  a coldness,  a ruthless,  stony,  inexorable  im- 
passivity proper  only  to  the  unconditioned  existence 
of  the  Divine.  It  knows  neither  pity,  love,  nor  fear. 
Proud  and  blasphemous  as  Belshazzar  in  the  halls  of 
Babylon,  it  shrinks  from  no  cruelty  that  the  ambition 
of  the  hour  seems  to  require.  Untouched  by  any  sug- 
gestion of  pity,  every  generous  appeal  falls  away  from 
its  cruel  disdain  like  a child’s  arrow  from  the  cold  face 
of  the  Sphinx.  When,  as  a result  of  his  devastating 
policy,  the  enemy’s  little  children  are  dying  in  thou- 
sands, a minister  will,  amid  the  plaudits  of  his  as- 
sembled supporters,  defend  the  system  of  starvation, 
extended  as  well  to  the  mothers  as  the  children,  and 
even  lament  such  excessive  consideration  for  the  enemy 
— “he  is  not  going  to  do  anything  to  please  Exeter 
Hall  ...  or  put  a difficulty  in  the  way  of  the  general 
in  his  work  of  bringing  this  campaign  to  an  early  con- 
clusion.” 1 Unredeemed  by  any  spark  of  humanity  or 
a single  touch  of  altruism,  the  political  mind  moves 
towards  its  object  with  an  absolute  selfishness  par- 
donable only  in  the  blind  forces  of  Nature.  Like  the 
jealous  pagan  who  declared  that  the  rival  “Carthage 
must  be  destroyed,”  a most  Christian  governor2  is 
“ determined  to  break  the  dominion  of  ” a friendly 
and  peaceful  neighbor,  going  “ straight  on  the  way 


i7  4 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


on  which  he  had  set  out  from  the  first,  to  make  an 
end  of  the  business  once  and  for  all,”  till  he  ends 
with  a “ country  absolutely  denuded  of  everything.”  If 
reproached  with  the  cruel  and  wicked  bungling  which 
has  precipitated  such  a frightful  tragedy,  the  bolt- 
bearing Jove  will  proudly  assert  that  if  he  had  an 
opportunity  again  he  “would  not  alter  one  word  in  his 
dispatches.”  3 In  the  thought  of  his  chariots  and  horse- 
men Pharaoh  forever  hardens  his  heart.  Backed  by 
army  and  navy,  the  war  minister  sits  as  God, 

And,  at  his  heels, 

Leash’d  in  like  hounds,  should  famine,  sword,  and  fire 

Crouch  for  employment. 

War  demoralizes  the  politician  by  giving  him  control 
of  an  instrument  of  tyranny  greater  than  ought  to  be 
committed  to  human  hands.  A military  system  assures 
the  governing  classes  of  the  support  of  vast  numbers 
of  persons  in  whatever  martial  adventures  they  may  see 
fit  to  embark.  First  come  the  soldiers  themselves  — 
army,  navy,  reserve  forces,  and  even,  though  perhaps 
to  a less  extent,  volunteers ; then  all  their  families  and 
friends  who  have  a financial  or  sentimental  interest  in 
their  employment  ; then  the  wide  circle  of  the  govern- 
ing officials  with  their  immense  social  prestige ; then 
the  vast  and  ever  increasing  numbers  of  civil  servants 
through  all  grades;  — all  these  persons  stand  either 
committed  to  support  or  prejudiced  in  favor  of  the 
war  policy  of  their  day,  and  persecute  those  who  refuse 
to  bow  the  knee  to  Baal.  And  as  lust  of  power  grows 
by  what  it  feeds  on,  the  politician  loses  no  opportunity 


TO  THE  POLITICIAN 


175 


of  increasing  the  extent  and  efficiency  of  his  organ  of 
tyranny,  even  though  he  sees  that  other  nations  in- 
crease theirs  in  corresponding  degree.  The  mailed  fist 
grows  heavier,  the  arm  that  props  it  longer.  Every 
new  turn  in  national  affairs  is  craftily  turned  to  an 
increase  of  the  fighting  establishments.  If  times  are 
hard,  the  people  will  be  told  that,  whatever  they  may 
go  without,  they  must  not  reduce  their  defenses  ; if  pros- 
perous, that  their  defenses  urgently  require  strength- 
ening ; and  at  all  times  a scare  of  foreign  attack  is 
ready  to  be  worked  up,  till  the  deluded  people,  in  a 
panic,  vote  those  supplies  which  really  go  to  their  own 
enslavement.  The  organ  of  defense  against  external 
attack  is  just  as  truly  and  in  as  great  degree  an  engine 
of  tyranny  over  the  home  land,  — an  engine  always  on 
hand,  ready  at  the  call  of  the  ruling  classes,  prompt 
and  potent  to  suppress  free  opinion,  crush  political  lib- 
erty, trample  down  the  aspiring  proletariat,  persecute 
conscience  and  religion.  By  the  frightful  prerogative 
of  his  office  the  politician  can  turn  this  engine  of 
oppression  against  the  very  people  who  own  it  and 
from  whose  ranks  it  is  recruited ; so  that,  for  example, 
a taxpaying  father  is  giving  his  son  wages  to  be  his 
master,  and  even  to  shoot  him  some  day  when  he 
chances  to  get  mixed  up  with  a great  strike.  A large 
part  of  the  work  of  the  soldier  in  many  lands  has  been 
to  suppress  what  governors  call  “revolution.” 

The  fact  that  this  instrument  of  oppression  can  be 
used  to  promote  the  personal  aims  of  the  politician 
introduces  another  possibility  of  demoralization.  To 


176 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


turn  these  national  agencies  into  a means  of  private 
advancement  requires  nothing  more  than  inordinate 
selfishness  directed  by  moderate  cunning ; and  whilst 
selfishness  contemplates  the  alluring  prospect  of  greater 
power,  cunning  finds  means  to  speculate  ruthlessly  in 
the  lives  of  one’s  own  countrymen  and  those  of  other 
lands.  One  who  is  himself  a soldier  and  a governor 
testifies  to  “ a party  working  all  they  know  for  war 
. . . influences  which  are  being  steadily  directed  to 
the  promotion  of  racial  antagonism.”  4 None  who  is  not 
divine  should  be  intrusted  with  divine  power.  The 
temptation  is  too  strong  for  human  nature.  He  who 
should  be  a composer  becomes  a provoker  of  strife. 
The  peacemaker  disappears,  and  his  place  is  taken  by 
a “mad  man  who  casteth  firebrands,  arrows,  and  death.” 
Like  a mad  Mephistopheles,  too,  he  sports  a war  like 
“a  feather  in  his  cap.”5  In  the  present  state  of  human 
morality  no  policy  is  more  popular  than  a war  (while  it 
lasts),  and  an  unscrupulous  minister  will  not  long  be 
lacking  in  means  and  opportunities  of  compassing  his 
end.  Some  loud  talk  about  breaches  of  treaty,  invasion 
of  rights,  political  wrongs  or  grievances  invented  for 
the  occasion,6  will  be  sufficient  to  whip  the  passions  of 
the  people  into  foam.  A pretense  of  patriotism  will 
cover  every  plan  to  make  a new  reputation  or  rehabili- 
tate a failing  one,  — even  to  humble  a rival  at  home  or 
punish  a too  stout  antagonist  abroad.  Our  age  also  has 
its  specimens  of  Mrs.  Browning’s 

Statesmen  draping  self-love’s  conclusion 
In  cheap  vernacular  patriotisms, 

Unable  to  give  up  Judaea  for  Jesus. 


J 


TO  THE  POLITICIAN 


177 


Such  is  the  nervous  and  panic  condition  produced  by- 
bloated  militarism  that  a schemer  will  have  no  diffi- 
culty in  turning  his  countrymen’s  eye  from  his  own 
insolent  and  aggressive  policy  to  the  political  defects 
or  military  schemes  of  a neighbor,  alleging  a thousand 
justifying  pleas  for  whatever  piratical  adventure  or 
territorial  brigandage  may  be  on  foot.  He  is  never 
without  his  excuse.  We  have  seen  him  in  his  very 
workshop.  We  know  how  it  is  done.  In  the  harmless 
act  of  a contemporary  ruler  he  will  be  able  to  allege 
some  threat  to  commercial  interests,  some  menace  to 
the  political  rights  of  a handful  of  colonists,  or  some 
encroachment  upon  imperial  prerogative  ; he  will  pro- 
ceed to  envelop  the  matter  in  a cloud  of  words  and  a 
litter  of  dispatches  ; the  quarrel  will,  of  necessity,  grow 
till  the  original  dispute  merges  into  other  questions, 
less  relevant,  but  grosser,  bulkier,  more  palpable  to 
the  multitude  ; and  then,  having  accumulated  a mass  of 
inflammable  material,  he  puts  the  match  to  it  in  a fiery 
and  provocative  speech  by  which  the  rage  of  his  oppo- 
nent is  excited  against  him  and  the  rage  of  his  coun- 
trymen against  the  opponent.  The  result  is  war : the 
gratified  schemer  has  his  way  ; and  there  is  “ one  wrong 
more  to  man,  one  more  insult  to  God.”  Iago  inflames 
Othello,  and  Othello  murders  Desdemona. 

The  baneful  effect  of  war  upon  the  mind  of  the  poli- 
tician is  seen  still  further  in  the  fact  that  it  leads  him 
to  rely  on  force  rather  than  reason,  making  him,  as  a 
consequence,  hasty,  domineering,  rash,  and  unreason- 
able. Proud  to  think  of  the  reserves  of  force  waiting 
to  back  his  will,  he  struts  and  hectors,  or,  according  to 


178 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


his  nature,  denounces  with  a solemnity  that  hovers 
between  the  sublime  and  the  asinine.  Confident  in  the 
immense  armaments  of  his  country,  he  threatens  and 
coerces  an  inferior  power,  in  the  sure  belief  that  it  will 
not  dare  to  fight,  and  then,  when  it  dares,  is  himself 
found  quite  unprepared.  A famous  general  testifies 
against  the  conduct  of  a certain  war  as  “ a shameful 
story,  which  tells  of  how  an  army  may  be  destroyed  by 
a ministry  through  want  of  ordinary  foresight.”  7 In  a 
more  recent  case  it  is  on  record  that  a number  of  gen- 
erals were  sent  six  thousand  miles  away  to  a strange 
country  without  any  written  instructions  or  plan  of  cam- 
paign. The  politician  rests  his  case  on  bluff,  and  ends  it 
with  battle.8  Impatient  of  the  slow  movements  of  inves- 
tigation and  argument,  the  temptation  to  fall  back  on 
the  more  imposing  declaration  of  war  and  the  speedier 
solutions  propounded  by  cannon  and  sword  is  irresist- 
ible.9 Strong  in  the  consciousness  of  immeasurable 
power,  he  ignores  or  despises  the  rights  of  other  na- 
tions, is  willing  to  indulge  himself  in  conduct  he  would 
not  allow  in  them,  and  falls  into  that  temper  by  which 
he  is  unfitted  for  cool  reflection,  indisposed  to  sober 
judgment,  and  prone  to  harbor  those  thoughts  of  re- 
venge which  can  never  be  far  from  the  man  that  con- 
trols an  arsenal.  If,  in  his  private  capacity,  he  had 
attempted  the  life  of  but  a single  person,  he  knows  that 
he  would  have  had  to  stand  his  trial  before  an  impartial 
jury  and  a dispassionate  judge  ; but  he  also  knows  that 
he  can,  as  a politician,  get  up  as  many  deputations, 
interviews,  petitions,  as  may  be  necessary  to  give  the 
coloring  he  desires,10  set  nation  against  nation,  throw 


TO  THE  POLITICIAN 


179 


a hundred  thousand  lives  into  the  balance,  and  then 
trust  to  his  powers  of  misrepresentation  and  irritation 
to  pervert  justice,  excite  prejudice,  and  inflame  passion, 
till  judgment  becomes  impossible  and  nothing  remains 
but  execution.  His  own  press  organ  laments  that  “pure 
reason  unhappily  has  little  to  do  with  the  direction  of 
political  affairs.”  11  The  place  of  reason  is  taken  by 
low  cunning,  and  the  strategic  politician,  anticipating 
the  meanness  of  the  battlefield,  schemes  to  drive  his 
opponent  into  a false  position,  withholding  his  propos- 
als but  pushing  on  his  armaments,  and  by  carefully 
planned  procrastinations  succeeds  in  forcing  the  oppo- 
nent’s hand,  compelling  him  to  strike  the  first  blow, 
thus  placing  him  nominally  in  the  attitude  of  aggres- 
sor.12 To  conspire  against  an  individual  is  criminal ; 
against  a nation,  glorious.  From  the  baleful  root  of 
violence  spring  all  those  thorns  of  treachery,  insolence, 
and  rapacity  which  make  the  annals  of  the  politician 
a moral  tragedy  not  less  mournful  than  the  physical 
tragedy  of  the  soldier. 

A peculiarly  demoralizing  element  in  the  war  system 
here  comes  into  view,  — it  encourages  shallowness  and 
stupidity  in  the  politician,  and  at  the  same  time  affords 
him  a ready  escape  from  his  own  blunders.  Relying  on 
the  soldier,  the  politician  is  delivered  from  any  neces- 
sity of  understanding  the  question  he  is  dealing  with. 
Knowing  that  if  the  worst  comes  to  the  worst  he  can 
call  in  the  fighting  man,  he  can  afford  to  be  as  blindly 
ignorant  and  as  wickedly  infatuated  as  history  on 
many  supreme  occasions  shows  him  to  be.  Delivered 


l8o  MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 

by  the  possibility  of  fighting  from  the  necessity  of 
understanding,  he  can  permit  himself  to  be  hasty  in 
policy,  criminal  in  obstinacy,  prejudiced  in  mind,  cloudy 
in  judgment,  ignorant  of  facts ; for  it  cannot  then  be 
readily  seen  that  he  has  been  unable  to  sift  evidence, 
to  write  clear  dispatches,  or  even  to  ascertain  the  facts 
of  the  case.  He  writes  in  such  terms  as  to  lead  every- 
body to  believe  the  exact  reverse  of  what  he  afterwards 
declares  he  meant ; and  though  he  sees  that  his  diplo- 
matic antagonist  also  is  the  dupe  of  his  ambiguity,  and 
knows  that  war  will  be  the  certain  result  of  that  mis- 
apprehension, he  does  nothing  to  clear  it  away,  but 
proceeds  to  stump  the  country,  arousing  popular  pas- 
sion against  his  adversary.13  He  wipes  out  his  blunder 
in  blood.  The  sword  cuts  the  knot  his  bungling  hand 
tied.  It  is  the  fatal  lapse  into  violence,  the  debilitating 
reliance  upon  force,  the  pernicious  thought  that  in  the 
absence  of  convincing  wisdom  it  is  always  possible  to 
fall  back  on  overwhelming  strength, — it  is  this  that 
produces  war.  War  is  nothing  but  a confession  of  fail- 
ure. Were  no  other  condemnation  of  the  principle  of 
force  in  international  affairs  forthcoming,  the  stupidity 
of  the  men  who  trust  to  arms  rather  than  reason  would 
be  sufficient.  Enveloped  in  the  awful  pomp  and  majesty 
which  the  power  to  decree  death  to  a nation  lends  him, 
the  politician  can  indeed  pose  magnificently,  can  as- 
sume the  semblance  of  vast  understanding  and  the 
tone  of  unimaginable  wisdom  (for  it  is  only  proper  that 
omnipotence  should  put  on  the  mask  of  omniscience), 
while  subsequent  events  and  even  his  own  admis- 
sions prove  that  these  spectacular  effects  were  entirely 


TO  THE  POLITICIAN 


18 1 


compatible  with  most  moderate  knowledge  of  the  things 
about  which  he  was  preparing  to  fight.  Oscillating 
between  imbecility  and  blasphemy,  he  will  deliver  him- 
self of  a “What  I have  said  I have  said,”  and  his  min- 
ions of  the  press  will  murmur,  “ Well  done,  thou  good 
and  faithful  servant,”  commenting  in  awe-stricken  tones 
on  how  he  “ dispensed  with  his  usual  freedom  of  ges- 
ture and  almost  confined  his  action  to  the  slight  em- 
phasis of  his  right  hand.  All  this  was  consummately 
impressive,  and  brought  home  the  sense  of  imperial 
dignity  and  duty  in  a way  that  seemed  to  elevate  the 
hour.”  14  There  are  moments  of  candor  or  garrulity, 
however,  when  he  confesses  that  he  could  not  under- 
stand what  was  plain  to  all  the  world  beside,  and  would 
as  soon  have  expected  the  impossible  to  happen  as  that 
which  all  the  world — -except  himself  — knew  would 
happen  — the  government  had  no  special  information 
— the  man  in  the  street  knew  as  much  as  the  man  in 
the  cabinet  — they  would  have  as  readily  expected  to 
be  at  war  with  Switzerland  as  with  that  particular  coun- 
try— they  must  remember  their  enemy  had  horses  — 
and  so  through  every  degree  of  ignorance  and  drivel.15 
Before  a war  which  is  to  last  three  years  and  to  cost 
twelve  hundred  million  dollars  he  will  assure  his  coun- 
try that  there  is  “ not  the  slightest  chance  of  war  ; that 
the  armed  strength  of  the  foe  is  the  greatest  unpricked 
bubble  in  the  world”;16  and  all  who  take  a different 
view  are  treated  in  the  same  way  as  the  distinguished 
general  and  diplomatist  who  testifies  : 17  “I  was  treated 
with  suspicion ; they  would  not  send  for  me  or  ask  me 
anything.  Of  course,  at  that  time  they  were  being  told 


182 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


it  was  a case  of  [fifty  million  dollars],  and  the  whole 
thing  over  at  Christmas.  . . . Every  officer  in  the  army 
knows  that ; any  one  who  told  them  the  opposite  was 
called  names,  ridiculed,  and  laughed  at ; he  was  either 
a fool  or  a knave,  or,  as  they  said  of  me,  I was  both.” 
It  is  time  the  political  fetich  were  destroyed.  A man 
who  nurses  the  infatuated  delusion  that  military  prepa- 
rations are  the  best  means  of  preventing  national  decay  ; 
who  dins  his  demoralizing  doctrine  into  the  people’s 
ear ; who  sedulously  fosters  a military  enthusiasm  as 
heartless  as  his  military  theory  is  brainless,  — of  what 
foolishness  is  not  such  a man  capable  ? Whilst  he 
should  be  cultivating  far  views  and  the  mind  that  looks 
before  and  after,  he  plays  fickle  feather  with  the  man 
in  the  street  — as  destitute  of  principles  and  as  barren 
of  ideals  as  he.  Supposed  to  be  borne  on  the  tides  of 
deep  policy,  he  is  but  caught  up  on  the  surf  of  catch- 
words— swayed  by  the  humor  of  the  hour  and  carried 
about  by  every  wind  of  doctrine  — echoing  the  shibbo- 
leths and  invoking  the  fetiches  of  the  moment.  One 
day  he  will  be  found  blessing  a peace  conference  be- 
cause it  is  a sign  of  our  common  Christianity ; the  next 
declaring  war  and  explaining  that  Christianity  has  no 
place  in  the  politics  of  nations.  By  his  loud  and  belli- 
cose tone  he  contrives  to  persuade  his  nation  that  he 
is  upholding  its  prestige ; and  then,  having  sown  the 
wind,  goes  trustfully  on  his  way,  believing  that  when 
the  time  comes  for  the  people  to  reap  the  whirlwind 
his  part  in  the  tragedy  will  have  been  forgotten,  or 
knowing  that,  at  worst,  it  will  be  his  successors  who 
will  have  to  confess,  in  the  classic  language  of  a British 


TO  THE  POLITICIAN 


183 


prime  minister,  that  his  country  has  “ backed  the  wrong 
horse.”18  After  he  has  brought  down  the  black  storm 
of  war  he  will  exhort  his  countrymen  to  trust  the  man 
at  the  wheel,  — the  man  who  showed  that  he  could  not 
read  the  compass  or  see  an  inch  before  him  in  a nar- 
row sea,  — nay,  the  very  rower  who  brought  the  ship 
into  deep  waters  and  steered  her  straight  into  the 
heart  of  the  storm.  A signalman  who  runs  two  trains 
together  is  sentenced  to  long  imprisonment,  even  though 
no  lives  are  lost ; but  the  salaried  incapables  whose 
pride  and  stupidity  sacrifice  countless  lives  and  lay  con- 
tinents desolate  are  rewarded  with  peerages  and  premier- 
ships.  Nature  and  God  avenge  themselves,  no  doubt ; 
but  meantime  the  peoples  also  perish.  Relying  — not 
on  the  unconquerable  resources  of  reason  and  morality 
but  on  violence,  the  governing  classes  constantly  tend 
towards  that  combination  of  ignorance,  arrogance,  and 
levity,  which  is  the  sure  forerunner  of  decay.  The  sage’s 
injunction  to  Rasselas  will  fit  our  case  : “ My  son,  ob- 
serve with  how  little  wisdom  the  world  is  governed.” 

The  consciousness  of  possessing  arms  wherewith  to 
enforce  his  claim  demoralizes  the  politician  by  leading 
him  to  confound  right  with  might ; whereas,  if  he  were 
deprived  of  the  false  security  which  arms  give,  he  would 
not  dare  to  show  that  disregard  for  the  rights  of  other 
people  which  has  converted  the  sphere  of  international 
affairs  into  a zone  of  robbery  and  jobbery.  It  is  the 
appeal  from  right  to  might  that  substitutes  expediency 
for  morals,  loses  the  distinction  between  forbidden  and 
unforbidden  in  considering  merely  the  profitable  and 


1 84  MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 

unprofitable,  and  brings  every  international  question  to 
the  test  of  a cruel  national  egoism.  Humanity  furnishes 
no  motive,  nor  brotherhood,  nor  justice,  nor  peace  — 
the  national  interest  is  all.  A principle  is  right  or 
wrong  according  to  the  profit  of  the  moment  ; an  act 
is  just  or  unjust  according  as  it  suits  the  programme  of 
the  domineering  power.  The  will  of  the  master  of 
armies  becomes  the  law  of  nations,  yes,  even  of  God  ; 
for  if  other  excuse  be  not  forthcoming  the  warring  poli- 
tician will  fall  back  upon  the  divine  decrees  and  assert 
that,  right  or  no  right,  it  is  the  manifest  destiny  of 
his  people  to  go  here  or  there  and  annex  this  or  that. 
A competent  philosopher  has  noted  the  periodical  ad- 
vent of  “ the  morally  emancipated  statesman,  who,  when 
circumstances  drive  him  to  cruelty,  rapacity,  breach  of 
faith,  falsehood,  will  not  waver  and  whine  about  the 
* painful  necessity,’  but  with  simple  decision,  unham- 
pered by  scruples,  take  the  course  that  leads  straight 
to  the  next  stage.”  19  Necessity  is  the  tyrant’s  plea; 
and  the  politician  who  designs  an  act  of  injustice  is 
certain  to  defend  it  as  the  manifest  destiny  of  his 
nation  ; whereas,  if  the  appeal  to  reason  were  alone 
open  to  him,  this  pretended  resignation  to  the  will  of 
the  gods,  this  greed  in  the  disguise  of  fatalism,  this 
covetousness  masquerading  as  political  Calvinism,  would 
be  impossible.  Mrs.  Browning’s  righteous  politician 
would  then  hold  the  field  : 

Never,  for  lucre  or  laurels, 

Or  custom,  though  such  should  be  rife, 

Adapting  the  smaller  morals 
To  measure  the  larger  life. 


TO  THE  POLITICIAN 


185 

He,  though  the  merchants  persuade, 

And  the  soldiers  are  eager  for  strife, 

Finds  not  his  country  in  quarrels 
Only  to  find  her  in  trade. 

But  behold  the  politician  as,  with  the  air  of  an  im- 
maculate saint,  he  rises  to  declare  that  “ we  seek  no 
gold  fields  ; we  seek  no  territory,”  20  but  only  to  main- 
tain the  nation’s  influence  ! Who  that  knows  him  does 
not  also  know  him  to  mean  that  when  he  has  established 
the  nation’s  supremacy  by  force  of  arms  he  will  leave 
his  foe  not  “a  shred  of  real,  independent  government 
and  that  all  those  other  things  he  ostentatiously  declares 
he  does  not  want  will  be  added  unto  him  ? Another  will 
condemn  a war  and  denounce  the  tortuous  policy  that 
led  up  to  it ; will  profess  indignation  and  disgust ; but 
will  refuse  to  stop  it ; will  see  it  through  ; will  even 
vote  supplies  to  put  it  through  ; and  will  then  prepare 
to  turn  the  others  out  of  office,  and  reap  the  territorial 
harvest  of  the  war  policy  he  had  denounced.  Though 
he  charges  the  promoters  of  the  war  with  having  lied, 
'•  swindled,  and  broken  treaties,  he  will  stand  in  with  them 
to  fight  to  a finish;  a people  having  been  injured,  he 
will  help  to  destroy  them  ; a quarrel  having  been  picked, 
he  will  become  accomplice  in  murder.  At  such  frightful 
immoralities  as  these  do  we  arrive  when  we  turn  might 
into  right.  It  is  the  appeal  from  right  to  might  that  fills 
the  earth  with  robbery,  misery,  and  blood. 

War  demoralizes  the  politician  by  leading  him  into 
conspiracies  and  treachery  to  which,  were  there  no  gun 
and  bayonet  behind,  he  would  never  resort.  There  are 


i86 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


a number  of  citizens  in  every  state  who,  with  a certain 
journalist,  avow  that  they  desire  nothing  higher  of  their 
representatives  than  to  look  after  their  material  inter- 
ests, without  regard  to  “ either  truth  or  honesty  ” ; 21  and 
their  representatives,  it  has  to  be  owned,  fulfill  these 
expectations  marvelously  well.  The  politician,  having 
sworn  to  his  own  hurt,  keeps  his  oath  only  till  he  is 
strong  enough  to  break  it.  “ If  we  were  to  be  just  for 
a single  day,”  he  says  with  Chatham,  “we  should  not 
have  another  year  to  live.”  Many  political  transactions 
are  thick  sown  with  lies  ; for  the  scheming  politician 
knows  that  war  wipes  out  the  past  by  introducing  new 
conditions,  and  that  he  can  easily  destroy  the  trail  of  his 
treacheries.  Before  a war  he  will  stir  up  the  wrath  of 
his  countrymen  by  calumnious  falsehoods  about  the 
cruelty  of  the  foe  to  native  races  ; after  the  war,  when 
the  lie  has  served  its  turn,  he  will  magnanimously 
absolve  them  from  the  charge.22  With  equal  facility  he 
will  make  a breach  in  fact  or  a breach  in  faith.  A pow- 
erful capitalist  hatches  a plot  against  a neighboring 
state  ; a friendly  politician  makes  over  to  him  a strip 
of  “jumping-off”  ground  from  which  his  armed  ma- 
rauders can  make  a swift  and  easy  descent  upon  the 
coveted  territory  ; high  government  officials  are  in  the 
secret ; the  bandit  officers  are  assured  that  the  politi- 
cians know  and  approve ; the  plot  fails ; an  inquiry  is 
ordered  ; all  parties  combine  to  suppress  the  truth  lest 
imperial  brigandage  should  become  unpopular ; the 
chief  conspirator  is  convicted  of  lying  and  blackmail ; 
the  minister  who  has  signed  that  declaration  rises  to 
declare  that  the  liar  and  blackmailer  has  done  nothing 


TO  THE  POLITICIAN 


187 


inconsistent  with  “his  personal  character  as  a man  of 
honor”  I23  Falsehood  is  prompt,  full,  and  sufficient  for 
every  crisis.  When  it  has  been  determined  to  accom- 
plish by  war  what  informal  brigandage  has  failed  to  do, 
dispatches  will  be  mutilated,  treaties  forsworn,  conven- 
tions torn  up  or  converted  into  patchwork  to  suit  the 
purpose,  and  the  state  which  was  last  year  declared 
independent  and  free  from  all  external  interference  is 
this  year  bullied,  dictated  to,  and  finally  conquered  and 
annexed.  Force  leads  to  fraud  ; fraud  again  to  force. 
Jobbery  that  would  disgrace  a Whitechapel  huckster  is 
not  beneath  the  politician  whose  hand  is  on  the  sword. 
He  will  sell  a national  asset,  receive  the  price,  and  then, 
while  retaining  the  price,  refuse  to  deliver  the  article 
for  which  his  antagonist  had,  on  his  own  confession, 
made  “considerable  territorial  and  other  sacrifices.” 
Knowing  that  without  fraud  an  excuse  for  force  will 
not  arise,  it  becomes  the  business  of  the  bandit  politi- 
cian to  lie  before  fighting  — which  he  does  with  such 
success  that  an  opposing  statesman,  whose  every  inter- 
est is  in  keeping  the  peace,  exclaims,  “ My  confidence 
is  gone ! ” Falsehood  hovers  between  the  impudent 
and  the  sublime.  When  they  begin  war  they  declare 
they  seek  neither  land  nor  gold ; they  put  up  a solemn 
spokesman  to  assure  a jealous  adversary  that  there  is 
no  design  upon  his  independence ; every  parliamentary 
cat-in-pan  gets  up  to  say  that  to  so  much  as  coquette 
with  the  idea  of  annexation  would  be  infamous  ; — but 
no  sooner  has  the  enemy’s  defense  collapsed  than  his 
overtures  for  peace  are  waved  aside,  and  the  suppression 
of  his  flag  is  openly  proclaimed  with  the  approval  of  the 


1 88 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


entire  host  of  trimmers  and  hypocrites  in  press  and  Par- 
liament. Thus  does  force  lead  to  fraud,  and  fraud  to 
the  necessity  for  further  force.  There  is  absolutely  no 
limit  to  the  mendacity  of  a minister  who  has  a blunder 
in  diplomacy  or  a crime  in  war  to  hush  up;  and  the 
habit  of  lying  contracted  — let  us  say  — in  foreign  di- 
plomacy invades  also  the  sphere  of  home  politics  and 
vitiates  the  entire  political  life  of  a country.  The  Blue 
Books  lie  shamelessly.  It  sometimes  takes  months  of 
persistent  questioning  to  drag  from  a reluctant  minister 
facts  which  intimately  affect  a nation’s  honor.  The 
politician’s  own  paper  exclaims  that  there  is  no  form  of 
human  credulity  so  hopeless  as  that  which  trusts  the 
“ official  denials  ” of  politicians  in  their  own  assemblies  ; 
so  that,  we  may  infer,  the  representatives  of  the  nation 
do  not  rise  in  their  places  to  speak  the  truth  but  to  pre- 
varicate, to  dissemble,  to  deny  the  true  and  insinuate 
the  false.  Bismarck,  who  surely  knew,  declared  that  “ a 
guarantee  [of  the  European  Powers]  was  in  these  days  of 
little  value.”  24  What  is  the  cause  of  this  unspeakable 
debauchery  of  the  political  conscience  ? There  is  but  one 
answer,  — violence,  force,  the  appeal  to  arms.  It  is  the 
possession  of  the  means  of  constraint,  and  the  supposed 
imperial  necessity  of  committing  crimes  of  violence,  that 
sink  the  politician  into  such  depths  of  deceit.  If  “the  last 
argument  of  kings”  were  entirely  excluded  from  the  cate- 
gory of  civilized  possibilities,  nine  tenths  of  the  immo- 
ralities that  disgrace  public  life  would  pass  away  with  it. 

The  demoralization  produced  in  the  politician’s  mind 
by  war  is  darkly  exhibited  in  that  incredible  spite, 


TO  THE  POLITICIAN 


189 


malignity,  and  meanness  with  which  he  assails  the  cause 
and  character  of  his  foe,  and  the  scorn  with  which  he 
denounces  and  defies  the  moral  sentiment  of  mankind. 
As  it  is  natural  to  suppose  that  the  men  who  constitute 
a nation  would  not  deliberately  destroy  those  of  another 
nation  unless  they  thought  them  extremely  wrong  and 
wicked,  it  becomes  the  business  of  the  politician  to 
slander  and  calumniate  his  adversary  by  every  species 
of  misrepresentation  and  abuse.  No  libel  is  too  foul, 
gross,  and  unscrupulous.  The  enemy  is  a liar  who  can- 
not be  trusted,  a slaver  who  oppresses  the  black  man,  a 
robber  who  plunders  all  who  set  foot  across  his  frontier, 
a despot  greedy  of  power,  a miser  greedy  of  gold,  a pig 
who  loves  dirt,  a coward  who  will  not  fight.  His  mag- 
nificent struggle  for  freedom  is  the  death  struggle  of  a 
corrupt  oligarch  for  power.  All  who  sympathize  with 
him  are  traitors,  fools,  knaves.  Having  by  these  calum- 
nies persuaded  his  countrymen  to  turn  thumbs  down, 
the  wily  politician  then  proceeds  to  pour  vitriolic  scorn 
upon  the  moral  sentiment  that  refuses  to  sign  the 
death  warrant.  Foreign  sentiment  is  mere  jealousy  ; 
home  sentiment  is  treason.  Thus  are  all  the  jury- 
men disqualified.  Having  got  all  his  colors  appropri- 
ately mixed  and  the  picture  shaded  to  his  satisfaction, 
the  war  minister  next  proceeds  to  exhibit  himself  as 
a shining  and  immaculate  angel  standing  out  against 
the  dark  background  of  the  enemy’s  guilt.  That  man 
who  is  about  to  assert  himself  by  superior  force  is 
under  the  necessity  of  presenting  himself  as  a pattern 
of  superior  virtue.  After  “Hell-roaring  Jake”  has  spread 
his  orders  to  “ kill  everything  over  ten,”  and  the  “water 


190  MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 

cure”  has  been  administered  again  and  again,  a Pres- 
ident, nevertheless,  can  be  found  to  declare : “ Our 
enemies  violated  every  rule  of  war.  Our  warfare  was 
conducted  with  singular  humanity.” 25  Though  the 
graves  of  twenty  thousand  women  and  children  turn 
the  “ concentration  camps  ” into  cemeteries,  a colonial 
secretary  will  felicitate  himself  that  “ no  war  in  the 
history  of  the  world  has  ever  been  conducted  with 
greater  humanity.”  26  The  preliminary  to  military  exe- 
cution is,  necessarily,  to  pillory  the  victim  as  a sinner 
above  all  others  that  dwell  in  Jerusalem  and  to  pedestal 
the  executioner  as  a saint.  Whence  follow  cheap  ap- 
peals to  honor  and  justice  and  abundant  declamation 
about  the  unstained  past,  the  unblotted  present,  and 
the  glorious  future.  The  cant  of  the  war  platform  is 
unspeakable  and  passes  all  bounds  of  endurance.  A 
politician  will  play  the  bully  to  greedy  and  mendacious 
speculators ; will  hatch  a plot  against  a nation,  slay 
their  citizens,  exile  their  defenders,  burn  their  farms, 
affront  their  sentiment,  and  force  into  rebellion  those 
who  might  have  been  friends,  in  order  the  more  effec- 
tually to  crush  them  ; and  then  will  turn  round  to  describe 
these  accumulated  sins  and  infamies  as  holy  sacrifices 
in  the  interests  of  civilization  and  humanity.  It  is  into 
such  loathsome  abysses  of  cant,  humbug,  and  hypocrisy 
that  the  politician  is  unavoidably  plunged  when  he 
relies  on  force  rather  than  truth,  justice,  and  reason. 

But  the  lower  deep  within  the  lowest  opens  when  the 
politician,  discarding  right  for  might,  openly  disclaims 
the  gospel,  renounces  that  holy  religion  into  which 
he  was  thought  to  be  baptized,  and  openly  promulgates 


TO  THE  POLITICIAN 


IQI 

wars  of  revenge.  It  is  not  by  accident  and  merely  in 
unguarded  moments  that  he  recants  his  Christian 
profession  ; it  is  by  necessity.  He  cannot  serve  God 
and  mammon,  Christ  and  Mars,  empire  and  humanity. 
The  chasm  between  his  heathenism  and  his  Christianity 
inevitably  yawns  more  and  more  widely,  until  it  defies 
concealment  and  demands  acknowledgment.  Then  the 
gospel  is  dismissed  in  set  terms,  with  the  thin  apology 
that  the  world  is  not  ripe  for  the  application  of  its  prin- 
ciples. Polite  concessions  are  made  to  the  memory  of 
those  statesmen  who  attempted  to  incorporate  the  gos- 
pel with  politics ; but  the  attempts  are  described  as 
failures,  and  the  country  is  warned  against  repeating 
the  dangerous  experiment  of  carrying  “ into  the  prin- 
ciple of  international  policy  the  principle  of  the  gospel 
itself.”  27  “The  mischief,”  it  is  asserted,  “lies  in  the 
fact  that  Mr.  Gladstone  tried  to  govern  the  country 
on  Christian  principles.” 28  Mingling  with  the  unholy 
sounds  of  slaughter,  the  saying  — a yet  unholier  sound 
than  they — has  been  frequently  heard,  that  there  is  no 
room  for  the  gospel  in  foreign  policy.  Let  it  be  so,  since 
so  it  must  be.  “ Even  now  are  there  many  antichrists.” 

It  would  be  interesting  to  learn  into  what  language 
the  new  imperialistic  heathenism  would  translate  the 
Beatitudes  of  the  Master  of  Christendom  — Beatitudes 
formerly  imagined  to  be  spoken  for  the  moral  guidance 
of  mankind,  summing  up  the  developed  virtue  of  the 
human  race  and  pointing  the  true  path  to  human  per- 
fection. How  would  these  fit  ? 

Blessed  are  the  proud  in  spirit : for  theirs  are  the 
kingdoms  of  the  world. 


192 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


Blessed  are  they  that  cause  others  to  mourn : for 
they  shall  not  need  to  be  comforted. 

Blessed  are  the  imperial  races  : for  they  shall  annex 
the  earth. 

Blessed  are  they  which  do  hunger  after  gold  and 
thirst  after  territory  : for  they  shall  be  filled. 

Blessed  are  the  merciless  : for  they  shall  not  need 
mercy. 

Blessed  are  the  pure  patriots  : for  they  shall  eliminate 
God. 

Blessed  are  the  peacebreakers  : for  they  shall  be  able 
to  murder  the  children  of  God. 

Blessed  are  they  which  persecute  for  wickedness’ 
sake  : for  they  annex  the  kingdom  of  the  persecuted. 

Blessed  are  ye,  when  men  shall  applaud  you,  and 
canvass  for  you,  and  move  all  manner  of  votes  of  con- 
fidence in  you,  falsely,  for  the  devil’s  sake.  Rejoice, 
and  be  exceeding  glad  : for  great  is  your  reward  in 
the  House  of  Commons : for  so  rewarded  they  the 
worldlings  which  were  before  you. 


REFERENCES 

1.  St.  John  F.  Brodrick,  War  Secretary,  House  of  Commons. 

2.  Lord  Milner,  War  against  War  in  South  Africa , p.  59. 

3.  Joseph  Chamberlain,  House  of  Commons. 

4.  Sir  William  Butler,  The  South  African  War  Commission . 

The  Working  up  of  Wars  : 

W.  M.  Crook  (formerly  editor  London  Echo'). 

In  the  whole  history  of  England  there  is  in  my  opinion  no  war  more 
unnecessary  and  unjust  than  the  one  in  which  we  are  now  engaged  in 
South  Africa.  I may  be  wrong,  but  if  I am  wrong  I cannot  understand 


TO  THE  POLITICIAN 


193 


the  ferocity  with  which  every  criticism,  every  claim  to  freedom  of  speech, 
has  been  suppressed.  Why  cannot  the  full  light  of  day  be  let  in  — first, 
on  the  Raid  and  Mr.  Chamberlain’s  alleged  connection  therewith;  sec- 
ond, on  the  exclusion  of  the  Transvaal  from  The  Hague  Conference  ; 
third,  on  the  persistent  refusal  of  England  to  refer  the  dispute  to  arbi- 
trators, even  when  all  foreign  arbitrators  were  excluded  ? 

5.  Joseph  Chamberlain,  October  8,  1900. 

6.  Invention  of  Grievances  : 

Capt.  L.  March  Phillipps,  With  Rimington. 

As  for  the  Uitlanders  and  their  grievances  I would  not  ride  a yard  or 
fire  a shot  to  right  all  the  grievances  that  were  ever  invented.  I know 
what  I am  talking  about,  for  I have  lived  and  worked  amongst  them  [six 
years].  I have  seen  English  newspapers  passed  from  one  to  another, 
and  roars  of  laughter  were  roused  by  the  Times  telegrams  about  these 
precious  grievances.  We  used  to  read  the  London  papers  to  find  out 
what  our  grievances  were.  I never  met  one  miner,  or  working  man,  who 
would  have  walked  a mile  to  pick  the  vote  up  off  the  road.  No  man 
who  knows  the  Rand  will  deny  the  truth  of  what  I tell  you. 

7.  Soldier's  Pocket  Book , p.  1 18. 

The  South  African  War  Commission,  p.  23,  which  also  (p.  144) 
puts  on  record : 

The  condition  in  1899,  as  disclosed  in  Sir  H.  Brackenbury’s  memo- 
randum of  our  armaments,  of  our  fortresses,  of  the  clothing  department, 
of  the  transport  of  the  Army  Medical  Corps,  of  the  system  of  remounts, 
shows  that  the  Secretary  of  State  was  either  culpable  for  neglect,  or 
in  ignorance  of  the  facts. 


8.  Sir  Henry  Campbell-Bannerman,  House  of  Commons. 

On  June  20,  1899,  Mr.  Chamberlain  asked  for  a conversation.  The 
Colonial  Secretary  came  to  his  [Sir  Henry’s]  room  and  said  he  wished 
to  submit  to  him  and  those  who  acted  with  him  two  proposals  that  the 
Government  contemplated.  The  first  was  to  send  10,000  men  to  the 
Cape.  He  must  have  expressed  surprise,  for  Mr.  Chamberlain  went 
on  to  say  : “You  need  not  be  alarmed.  There  will  be  no  fighting.  We 
know  that  these  fellows  won’t  fight.  We  are  playing  a game  of  bluff.” 
[ Sensation  and  great  Opposition  cheers .] 


194 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


9.  War  deliberately  preferred  to  Peace: 

{a)  In  South  Africa,  New  Age,  May  28,  1903. 

When  President  Kruger,  on  October  9,  1899,  asked  that  “all  points 
of  mutual  difference  shall  be  regulated  by  the  friendly  intercourse  of 
arbitration,  or  whatever  amicable  way  may  be  agreed  upon  by  this  Gov- 
ernment with  her  Majesty’s  Government,”  no  answer  was  vouchsafed. 

(h)  In  the  Philippines,  Loyal  Traitors,  p.  27. 

Weeks  before  the  treaty  of  Paris  had  been  signed,  and  while  it  was 
yet  wholly  uncertain  whether  the  United  States  Senate  would  ratify  the 
treaty;  while  the  Filipinos  occupied  toward  us  the  attitude  of  allies  who 
had  assisted  us  by  their  army  in  effecting  the  conquest  of  Spain,  — the 
administration,  regardless  of  the  rights  of  the  case,  without  proven 
necessity,  and  without  any  authority  from  Congress,  proceeded  to  make 
war  upon  the  Philippine  people.  It  issued  the  historic  proclamation  of 
December  21,  1898,  directing  the  military  occupation  of  the  Philippine 
Islands,  a proceeding  wholly  without  excuse  in  law  or  morals;  and  this 
proclamation  was  followed  by  the  naval  expedition  against  Iloilo,  under 
General  Miller,  thus  beginning  the  open  hostilities  against  the  Filipinos 
long  in  advance  of  the  outbreak  of  February  4 at  Manila. 

10.  J.  R.  Macdonald,  What  I saw  in  South  Africa. 

11.  Times,  April  4,  1898. 

12.  Plotting  War  while  professing  Peace: 

(a)  Lord  Lansdowne  to  General  Wolseley,  August  27,  1899. 

By  using  Indian  troops  you  could  have  your  own  army  corps  intact, 
for  use  on  whichever  line  might  be  selected.  I say  this  because  it  may 
be  possible  to  compel  the  Orange  Free  State  to  declare  itself  against  us, 
and  in  that  case  you  would,  I take  it,  advance  through  it,  and  not  via 
Natal.  You  ought  to  be  in  utrumque  paratus,  with  a plan  for  each 
contingency. 

(h)  Lord  Lansdowne,  House  of  Lords,  March  15,  1901. 

He  [Lord  Wolseley]  wished  us  to  mobilize  an  army  corps.  He  sug- 
gested to  us  that  we  might  occupy  Delagoa  Bay.  He  suggested  an  appeal 
to  the  Colonies  for  contingents.  He  proposed  that  we  should  land 
1 1,000  or  12,000  mules  in  South  Africa.  . . . I would  remind  him  that  he 
pressed  these  measures  on  me,  as  he  says,  in  the  month  of  June,  with  an 
expression  of  his  desire  that  the  operations  might  begin  as  soon  as  possi- 
ble. Why?  In  order  that  we  might  get  the  war  over  by  the  month  of 
November,  1899.  My  Lords,  the  idea  of  forcing  the  pace  in  such  a 
manner  as  to  complete  the  subjugation  of  the  two  Republics  by  the 


TO  THE  POLITICIAN 


195 


month  of  November,  1899,  was,  I frankly  confess,  one  that  did  not  at 
all  commend  itself  to  her  Majesty’s  government.  But  do  not  let  it  be 
supposed  that  all  this  time  we  were  sitting  with  our  hands  folded.  Our 
great  desire  was,  at  any  rate,  to  make  the  Colonies  safe  during  the  period 
of  suspense  through  which  we  were  passing;  and  with  that  object  we 
sent  out  to  South  Africa,  as  the  noble  and  gallant  Viscount  will  remem- 
ber, with  his  concurrence  and  on  his  recommendation,  large  reenforce- 
ments. ...  I dwell  upon  these  points  because  I want  to  show  that  her 
Majesty’s  government  did  not  contemptuously  brush  on  one  side  the 
advice  given  to  us  by  our  recognized  military  adviser.  Our  policy  was  a 
policy  of  peace,  not  a policy  of  provocation.  We  earnestly  desired  to 
have  the  country  with  us.  We  believed  the  country  was  not  ready  for 
war  in  the  months  of  June  and  July,  1899,  and  we  therefore  contented 
ourselves  with  taking  those  measures  which  we  were  advised  were  suffi- 
cient to  insure  the  safety  of  the  Colonies  in  the  meantime. 

(c)  See  War  against  War  in  South  Africa , p.  66. 

(d)  John  Morley,  Life  of  Gladstone,  Vol.  II,  pp.  330-335. 

The  sincerity  and  substance  of  his  [Count  Bismarck’s]  reproach  are 
tested  by  a revelation  made  by  himself  long  after.  . . . 

He  [Bismarck]  had  resolved  to  retire  if  the  incident  should  end  in 
this  shape  [the  keeping  open  of  friendly  negotiations  with  France],  and 
the  chief  actor  has  himself  described  the  strange  sinister  scene  that 
averted  his  design.  He  invited  Moltke  and  Roon  to  dine  with  him  alone 
on  July  13.  In  the  midst  of  their  conversation  “ I was  informed,”  he 
says,  “ that  a telegram  from  Ems  . . . was  being  deciphered.  When  the 
copy  was  handed  me  it  showed  that  Abeken  had  drawn  up  and  signed 
the  telegram  at  his  Majesty’s  command,  and  I read  it  out  to  my  guests, 
whose  dejection  was  so  great  that  they  turned  away  from  food  and 
drink.  On  a repeated  examination  of  the  document  I lingered  upon  the 
authorization  of  his  Majesty,  which  included  a command  immediately 
to  communicate  Benedetti’s  fresh  demand  and  its  rejection  to  our  am- 
bassadors and  to  the  press.  I put  a few  questions  to  Moltke  as  to  the 
extent  of  his  confidence  in  the  state  of  our  preparations,  especially  as  to 
the  time  they  would  still  require  in  order  to  meet  this  sudden  risk  of 
war.  He  answered  that  if  there  was  to  be  war  he  expected  no  advantage 
to  us  by  deferring  its  outbreak.  ...  I made  use  of  the  royal  authoriza- 
tion to  publish  the  contents  of  the  telegram ; and  in  the  presence  of  my 
two  guests  I reduced  the  telegram  by  striking  out  words,  but  without 
adding  or  altering,  to  the  following  form.  . . . The  difference  in  the 
effect  of  the  abbreviated  text  of  the  Ems  telegram,  as  compared  with 
that  produced  by  the  original,  was  not  the  result  of  stronger  words  but 
of  the  form,  which  made  this  announcement  appear  decisive,  while 


196 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


Abeken’s  version  would  only  have  been  regarded  as  a fragment  of  a 
negotiation  still  pending  and  to  be  continued  at  Berlin.  After  I .had 
read  out  the  concentrated  edition  to  my  two  guests,  Moltke  remarked : 

‘ Now  it  has  a different  ring;  it  sounded  before  like  a parley;  now  it  is 
like  a flourish  in  answer  to  a challenge.’  I went  on  to  explain : ‘ If  in 
execution  of  his  Majesty’s  order  I at  once  communicate  this  text,  which 
contains  no  alteration  in  or  addition  to  the  telegram,  not  only  to  the 
newspapers  but  also  by  telegraph  to  all  our  embassies,  it  will  be  known 
in  Paris  before  midnight,  and,  not  only  on  account  of  its  contents  but 
also  on  account  of  the  manner  of  its  distribution,  will  have  the  effect  of 
a red  rag  upon  the  Gallic  bull.  Fight  we  must,  if  we  do  not  want  to  act 
the  part  of  the  vanquished  without  a battle.  Success,  however,  essen- 
tially depends  upon  the  impression  which  the  origination  of  the  war 
makes  upon  us  and  others  ; it  is  important  that  we  should  be  the  party 
attacked,  and  that  we  fearlessly  meet  the  public  threats  of  France.’  This 
explanation  brought  about  in  the  two  generals  a revulsion  to  a more 
joyous  mood,  the  liveliness  of  which  surprised  me.  They  had  suddenly 
recovered  their  pleasure  in  eating  and  drinking,  and  spoke  in  a more 
cheerful  vein.  Roon  said,  ‘ Our  God  of  old  lives  still,  and  will  not  let 
us  perish  in  disgrace.’  ” 

The  telegram  devised  at  the  Berlin  dinner  party  soon  reached  Paris. 

. . . An  inflammatory  appeal  was  made  to  the  [French]  Chambers. 
When  a parliamentary  committee  was  appointed,  a vital  document  was 
suppressed,  and  its  purport  misrepresented.  Thus,  in  point  of  scruple, 
the  two  parties  to  the  transaction  were  not  ill  matched. 

13.  Bungling  Dispatches  : 

House  of  Commons,  October  19  and  25,  1899. 

Mr.  Chamberlain : The  honorable  member  harps  on  the  word  “ accept- 
ance.” He  must  remember  he  asked  me  the  question  what  we  intended. 
I,  myself,  should  have  thought  that  the  Boers  would  have  taken  it  as  an 
acceptance,  but  I suppose  it  may  be  properly  described  as  a qualified 
acceptance.  We  did  not  accept  everything,  but  we  accepted  at  least 
nine  tenths  of  the  whole. 

Sir  E.  Clarke:  Really  this  becomes  more  and  more  sad.  [ Loud 
Opposition  cheers .]  It  is  dreadful  to  think  of  a country  of  this  kind 
entering  upon  a war,  a crime  against  civilization,  when  this  sort  of  thing 
has  been  going  on.  [ Opposition  cheer s.~\  Why,  in  the  very  next  sentence 
the  right  honorable  gentleman  says  : “ It  is  on  this  ground  that  her 
Majesty’s  government  have  been  compelled  to  regard  the  last  proposal 
of  the  government  of  the  South  African  Republic  as  unacceptable  in  the 
form  in  which  it  has  been  presented.” 

Mr.  Chamberlain  : In  the  form. 


TO  THE  POLITICIAN 


197 


Sir  E.  Clarke : It  is  a matter  of  form  ? 
Mr.  Chamberlain:  Yes. 


Mr.  Cotirtney : My  right  honorable  friend  sent  an  answer  intended 
to  be  an  acceptance.  (An  Ho7iorable  Member : “No,  No!”)  My  right 
honorable  friend  is  quite  equal  to  denying  my  statement  if  it  is  wrong. 

Mr.  Chamberlain : Oh,  well,  then,  I will  deny  it.  \_Laughter  and 
Ministerial  cheers. ] I did  not  think  it  worth  while  to  interrupt  my  right 
honorable  friend  because  he  must  know  that  I have  said  over  and  over 
again  a “ qualified  acceptance,”  and  he  always  omits  the  adjective. 
[. Ministerial  cheers. ] 

Mr.  Courtney:  You  said  nine  tenths.  [Nationalist  cheers .]  Is  a ques- 
tion as  to  one  tenth  worth  war?  Tell  us  what  the  tenth  is. 

Mr.  Chamberlain  : I do  not  think  it  was  worth  war. 

Mr.  Courtney : Tell  us  what  the  one  tenth  was. 

Air.  Chamberlain  : Why  did  not  President  Kruger  give  way  ? 

Mr.  Courtney:  Because  you  did  not  explain  the  dispatch.  It  was 
never  explained  to  him.  The  whole  point  is,  Are  we  to  go  to  war  on  the 
tenth  part?  As  to  that  history  will  judge.  [“Hear,  hear.”]  I am  too 
confident,  unfortunately,  of  what  the  result  will  be. 

14.  Daily  Telegraph , London,  February  14,  1902. 

15.  A.J.  Balfour,  Dewsbury  and  Manchester,  November,  1899, 
January,  1900. 

16.  Cecil  Rhodes,  New  Age,  May  28,  1903. 

17.  Sir  William  Butler,  The  South  African  War  Commission. 

18.  Lord  Salisbury  on  the  Crimean  War. 

19.  Professor  Henry  Sidgwick,  Practical  Ethics , p.  67. 

20.  Lord  Salisbury,  November,  1899,  May,  1900. 

2 1 . War  against  War,  p.  2. 

22.  Joseph  Chamberlain,  October,  1899,  March,  1903. 

Political  Falsehood  : 

W.  T.  Stead,  Are  we  in  the  Right?  p.  70. 

It  has  been  my  lot  for  many  years  past  to  mingle  much  with  those 
whom  I may  call  the  artificers  of  empire.  They  are  not  religious  men  as 
a rule,  although  there  are  some  notable  exceptions. 

There  are  few  questions  which  I have  discussed  so  much  with  them 
as  this  supreme  question  of  th?  existence  of  a righteous  Ruler  of  the 
universe. 

I well  remember  the  discussions  that  raged  over  the  question  whether 
or  not  Mr.  Chamberlain  should  be  pressed  to  make  a clean  breast  of  it 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


198 

before  the  South  African  Committee.  I always  argued  strongly  that 
honesty  was  the  best  policy  in  the  long  run  ; that  Mr.  Chamberlain  could 
quite  truthfully  minimize  his  admissions,  and,  although  it  would,  of  course, 
necessitate  his  retirement  from  the  ministry,  it  would  not  permanently 
injure  his  career,  even  if  in  the  end  it  did  not  help  him  to  the  realization 
of  his  ambitions.  But  my  friends  one  and  all  scouted  the  idea.  “Joe,” 
they  said,  “ was  in  for  it,  and  he  must  lie  himself  out  of  it,  cost  what  it 
might.”  Some  of  them  said  they  would  not  lie  themselves,  but  they 
would  not  give  Mr.  Chamberlain  away.  “ He  could  do  his  own  lying  for 
himself.”  So  the  watchword  was,  “Lie!  Lie!  Lie!”  and  in  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  South  African  Committee  we  have  the  result. 

It  was  a risk,  an  immense  risk.  Any  one  of  half  a dozen  witnesses 
might  by  a single  incautious  word  have  spoiled  the  whole  conspiracy  of 
deception.  I never  believed  they  could  have  got  through  with  it.  Nor 
could  they  have  done  so  had  there  been  one  member  on  the  committee 
skilled  in  cross  examination  who  was  not  a party  to  the  hushing  up. 
When  it  was  all  over  I was  taunted  with  my  simplicity.  “ You  can  always 
trust  to  unctuous  rectitude,”  said  one  of  my  friends,  “ and,  when  that 
fails,  to  the  natural  cunning  of  the  official  Englishman.” 

Far  outside  the  ring  of  the  Africans  the  evil  lesson  of  that  committee 
was  eagerly  taken  to  heart.  Honesty  was  not  the  best  policy.  Truth 
was  not  essential  in  politics.  “ Just  see  how  Chamberlain  came  off  scot- 
free  ! Where  would  he  have  been  if  he  had  told  the  truth?”  And  the 
apparent  triumph  of  falsehood  poisoned  the  morale  of  multitudes  of  our 
Imperialists. 

That  it  was  falsehood,  that  the  verdict  was  obtained  by  wholesale 
suppression  of  vital  evidence  and  flat  denial  of  essential  facts,  no  one  who 
was  in  the  conspiracy  ever  disputed,  nor  do  they  now  deny  it.  On  the 
contrary,  I shall  be  severely  handled  for  referring  to  the  subject  again. 
It  is  such  a pity,  when  a lie  has  served  its  turn,  to  insist  upon  referring 
to  so  painful  a subject. 

23.  War  against  War  in  South  Africa , pp.  3,  210,  248,  292. 

24.  Morley’s  Life  of  Gladstone,  Vol.  II,  p.  320. 

25.  New  Age,  June  5,  1902. 

26.  Mr.  Chamberlain,  October  29,  1901. 

27.  Lord  Rosebery,  November,  1899. 

28.  T.  W.  Russell,  M.P.,  November,  1899. 


VI 


THE  MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR  TO 
THE  JOURNALIST 


. . . the  newspaper  press,  that  huge  engine  for  keeping  discussion  on 
a low  level,  and  making  the  political  test  final.  To  take  off  the  taxes 
on  knowledge  was  to  place  a heavy  tax  on  broad  and  independent 
opinion.  The  multiplication  of  journals  “ delivering  brawling  judgments 
unashamed  on  all  things  all  day  long”  has  done  much  to  deaden  the 
small  stock  of  individuality  in  public  verdicts.  It  has  done  much  to 
make  vulgar  ways  of  looking  at  things  and  vulgar  ways  of  speaking  of 
them  stronger  and  stronger,  by  formulating  and  repeating  and  stereo- 
typing them  incessantly  from  morning  until  afternoon,  and  from  year’s 
end  to  year’s  end.  For  a newspaper  must  live,  and  to  live  it  must 
please.  ...  It  is,  however,  only  too  easy  to  understand  how  a journal, 
existing  for  a day,  should  limit  its  view  to  the  possibilities  of  the  day, 
and  how,  being  most  closely  affected  by  the  particular,  it  should  coldly 
turn  its  back  upon  all  that  is  general.  And  it  is  easy,  too,  to  understand 
the  reaction  of  this  intellectual  timorousness  upon  the  minds  of  ordi- 
nary readers,  who  have  too  little  natural  force  and  too  little  cultivation 
to  be  able  to  resist  the  narrowing  and  deadly  effect  of  the  daily  iteration 
of  shortsighted  commonplaces.  — John  Morley. 


VI 


THE  MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR  TO  THE 
JOURNALIST 

Great  expectations  were  originally  formed  of  that 
which  the  pioneers,  referring  to  its  moral  possibilities, 
called  the  “Free  Press,”  and  Carlyle,  thinking  of  its 
material  resources  and  vast  stakes,  styled  the  “Fourth 
Estate.”  The  journalist  was  the  modern  equivalent  of 
the  knight-errant,  who,  with  chair  for  horse  and  pen 
for  lance,  was  to  “ ride  abroad  redressing  human 
wrong  ” ; the  new  Arthur  who  would  “ fell  the  forest, 
letting  in  the  sun,  and  make  broad  pathways  for  the 
hunter  and  the  knight  ” ; even  the  latter-day  prophet, 
taking  the  place  of  the  sacred  lawgivers,  promulgating 
from  a nineteenth-century  Sinai  the  laws  of  the  modern 
New  Jerusalem.  It  was  with  this  in  view  that  the 
pioneers  fought  to  get  freedom  for  the  pressman  to 
print  his  opinions,  suffered  even  to  get  cheap  paper  for 
him,  so  that  he  might  wing  his  shafts  of  light  into  the 
darkest  hovels  of  the  poor.  They  were  not  speculators 
seeking  new  investments,  but  idealists  desiring  the 
spread  of  knowledge  ; not  capitalists  planning  to  ex- 
ploit democracy,  but  democrats  praying  for  the  exten- 
sion of  popular  liberty  ; not  members  of  the  Three 
Estates  creating  a Fourth  to  be  their  tool,  but  citizens 
working  for  the  broad  ends  of  commonwealth.  Flence 
they  sought  a free  press  as  an  instrument  wherewith 


201 


202 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


to  make  men  free,  — free  from  the  tyranny  of  the  older 
Three  Estates,  from  their  own  ignorances,  prejudices, 
and  superstitions,  from  degrading  conditions  of  labor 
and  life.  Nor  have  these  great  ideals  been  wholly  lost. 
Here  and  there  an  Ithuriel  of  the  pen  hears  the  com- 
mand of  Michael  and  tracks  the  apostate  angels  through 
chaos  and  the  great  deep.  The  same  shadow,  neverthe- 
less, that  we  have  seen  dogging  the  footsteps  of  other 
democratic  institutions  — as  senates  and  schools- — is 
seen  deepening  into  blackness  in  the  rear  of  the  modern 
newspaper.  Not  unseldom  Satan  corrupts  Ithuriel  and 
draws  him  to  his  own  apostasy. 

Carlyle,  who  fastened  its  title  on  the  Fourth  Estate, 
did  not  permit  its  glamour  to  fasten  on  him,  but,  in  his 
Frederick , warned  enthusiasts  that  Walpole’s  “fashions 
and  conditions”  of  direct  bribery  would  alter  merely 
“according  as  you  have  a Fourth  Estate  developed,  or 
a Fourth  Estate  still  in  the  grub  stage”  ; that  “you 
may  buy,  not  of  the  Third  Estate  in  such  ways,  but  of 
the  Fourth,  or  of  the  Fourth  and  Third  together,  in 
other  still  more  felonious  and  deadly,  though  refined 
ways.  By  doing  clap-traps,  namely  ; letting  off  parlia- 
mentary blue-lights,  to  awaken  the  Sleeping  Swineries, 
and  charm  them  into  diapason  for  you.”  Terribly  has 
the  Carlylean  prophecy  been  fulfilled,  and  in  worse 
ways  ; the  sleeping  swineries  have  been  charmed  even 
into  the  infernal  diapason  of  war.  The  pioneers,  could 
they  look  up  from  their  graves,  might  almost  wish  their 
work  undone  ; for  they  would  see  the  instrument  they 
had  created  turned  so  far  from  its  original  purpose  as 
to  work,  in  certain  places,  contrary  to  their  aims.  They 


TO  THE  JOURNALIST 


203 


would  see  a financial  press  bought  by  scheming  specu- 
lators at  home,  and  a political  press  by  chartered  con- 
spirators abroad  ; the  Fourth  Estate  grasped  by  the 
mighty  hands  of  the  other  three,  making  them  finally 
all-mighty;  private  greed  successfully  wresting  its  fruits 
from  the  commonwealth ; the  already  swollen  tide  of 
national  pride  and  selfishness  buoying  the  political  ad- 
venturer and  the  financial  libertine  to  a still  sublimer 
vanity  and  egotism ; and  they  might  be  tempted  to  be- 
lieve they  had  let  loose  a curse  upon  the  earth  instead 
of  a benediction.  The  demoralization  of  the  journalist 
is  amongst  the  most  mournful  of  war’s  effects.  That 
our  knight-errant  should  become  mere  bottleholder  to  a 
national  bully,  our  princely  Arthur  a delighted  hounder- 
on  of  savage  gladiators  hewing  each  other  in  the  lists, 
our  prophet  an  abandoned  pagan  beating  the  tom-tom  Y 
to  drown  the  groans  of  the  dying,  — it  was  surely  for 
other  ends  than  these  that  the  free  press  was  born  and 
for  which  it  was  sent  into  the  world. 

These  terrible  forms  of  evil  would  almost  appear  to 
be  germane  to  the  press  ; they  are  not  new  ; they  greatly 
impressed  the  mind  of  Cowper  : 

How  shall  I speak  thee,  or  thy  power  address, 

Thou  god  of  our  idolatry,  the  Press  ? 

By  thee,  religion,  liberty,  and  laws, 

Exert  their  influence,  and  advance  their  cause; 

By  thee,  worse  plagues  than  Pharaoh’s  land  befell, 

Diffused,  make  earth  the  vestibule  of  hell : 

Thou  fountain,  at  which  drink  the  good  and  wise, 

Thou  ever-bubbling  spring  of  endless  lies, 

Like  Eden’s  dread,  probationary  tree, 

Knowledge  of  good  and  evil  is  from  thee. 


204 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


The  end  of  every  human  epoch  is  a day  of  judgment ; 
a day  of  judgment  is  invariably  accompanied  by  war; 
and  the  effect  of  war  is  to  test  and  prove  men’s  spirits, 
ranging  them  on  the  side  of  good  or  evil,  amongst  the 
sheep  or  the  goats,  according  to  what  manner  of  men  the 
touchstone  reveals  them  to  be.  It  is  thus  that  a time 
of  war  tests  the  journalist  also,  forcing  whatever  nefa- 
rious powers  are  latent  in  his  calling  to  their  highest 
pitch  and  expression,  bringing  them  before  the  public 
eye  in  glaring  lights,  and  illustrating  them  by  the  most 
flagrant  instances.  War  draws  out  the  worse  side  of 
all  who  succumb  to  its  influences  ; hence  the  common 
defects  of  a newspaper  are  aggravated  at  such  periods  ; 
the  turgid,  blood-swollen  tide  betrays  its  course,  which 
we  do  not  so  readily  observe  when  the  current  flows 
evenly  and  normally  within  the  banks  of  common 
affairs. 

One  fact  revealed  about  the  modern  press,  standing 
out  black  against  the  glare  of  war,  is  that  it  is  a com- 
mercial press,  whereas  the  men  who  battled  for  a free 
and  untaxed  paper  were  thinking  of  an  educational  and 
reforming  press.  The  original  type  of  newspaper  man 
is  disappearing, — the  man  who  owned  and  edited  his 
paper  as  small  shipmen  used  to  own  and  command 
their  schooners,  with  the  direct  object  of  furthering  a 
cause,  taking  reward  only  on  the  modest  scale  of  the 
laborer  who  was  worthy  of  his  hire,  — and  his  place 
has  been  taken  by  the  capitalist  who  employs  it  to 
produce  wealth  and  the  ends  of  wealth  ; even  by  the 
speculator  who  requires  powerful  organs  to  commend 


TO  THE  JOURNALIST 


205 


his  schemes  to  the  public,  and  the  conspirator  who  is 
able  to  buy  and  dictate  to  the  ablest  pens  in  the  market. 
That  independent  press  from  which  our  fathers  hoped 
so  much  tends  increasingly  to  become  a vile  servitor 
of  scheming  plutocrats  who,  grasping  parliaments  with 
one  hand  and  the  press  with  the  other,  lift  themselves 
more  and  more  towards  omnipotence.  Transactions 
which  the  pioneers  would  have  regarded  as  political 
prostitution  have  now  become  legitimate  business. 
Great  newspapers  are  bought  and  sold  as  money-making 
instruments,  passing  with  their  entire  staffs  from  those 
who  hold  one  set  of  opinions  to  those  who  hold  an 
entirely  different  set,  the  determining  question  being 
profit  and  loss  instead  of  political  principle,  precisely 
as  the  same  men  would  buy  a mill  or  sell  a mine. 

This  is  not  to  be  set  down  altogether  to  the  discredit 
of  those  journalists  who,  driven  into  a corner,  sorrow- 
fully confess  that  the  mercantile  element  dominates 
the  modern  newspaper,  nor  even  of  those  who  boldly 
avow  the  commercial  motive,  but  to  the  fact  that  the 
whole  drift  of  modern  society  is  towards  the  hands 
which  hold  the  wealth.  The  great  daily  is  a vast  con- 
cern, requiring  so  much  machinery  and  so  many  work- 
ers, such  numbers  of  writers  and  correspondents  able 
to  command  large  salaries,  holding  property  or  rights 
of  usage  in  telegraphs  and  other  expensive  plants,  in- 
volving control  of  such  immense  capital,  that  it  cannot 
possibly  be  held  by  a poor  man,  and  gravitates  naturally 
into  the  possession  of  the  capitalist  class.  In  his  great, 
majestic  way  Milton  pleaded  that  the  printing  press 
should  be  made  free  from  the  domination  of  Parliament, 


206 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


lest  we  should  “ dishearten  utterly  and  discontent,  not 
the  mercenary  crew  and  false  pretenders  to  learning, 
but  the  free  and  ingenuous  sort  as  evidently  were  born 
to  study  and  love  learning  for  itself,  not  for  lucre  or 
any  other  end,  but  the  service  of  God  and  of  truth”; 
but  the  danger  involved  in  “lucre  or  any  other  end” 
dreaded  by  the  first  Puritan  has  come  upon  us,  and  we 
require  another  Milton  to  deliver  our  press  from  the 
overlordship  of  the  money  bag.  For  when  the  money 
bag  can  be  replenished  best  by  war  it  finds  its  most 
valuable  auxiliary  in  the  hired  pen.  The  pen  becomes 
not  only  mightier  but  bloodier  than  the  sword. 

From  this  fount  and  origin  of  evil  flows  all  that  is 
worst  in  the  journalism  of  our  day  and  all  that  is 
pettiest.  Its  moral  and,  at  times,  intellectual  poverty 
arises  from  the  fact  that  its  members  are  chosen  less 
for  their  attachment  to  principles,  or  their  proved 
ability  to  become  teachers  in  the  realms  of  art  and 
literature,  philosophy  and  science,  religion  and  politics, 
than  for  their  knack  of  hitting  the  popular  taste  in  style 
and  opinion,  for  their  smartness  and  opportunism,  for 
all  those  heaven-sent  qualities  which  go  to  make  “the 
largest  circulation  in  the  country.”  Impartiality  in 
reporting  news  and  judicial  fairness  in  commenting  on 
them  are  set  aside  in  favor  of  snap  and  brightness,  short 
paragraphs  and  thin  thinking,  undermining  steadily  the 
reading  and  reflective  habits  of  their  customers.  This, 
however,  is  a minor  evil.  The  supreme  danger  of  the 
modern  press  is  other  than  its  demand  on  the  reader’s 
time,  the  dissipation  of  his  energies  amid  a hundred  un- 
important details,  the  blunting  of  his  moral  perceptions 


TO  THE  JOURNALIST 


207 


against  its  staring  vulgarities,  or  the  entanglement  of 
his  reason  amid  endless  political  sophistries ; it  lies 
in  that  systematic  inculcation  of  a low  ideal  natural  to 
a commercial  agency,  the  reduction  of  every  question 
to  terms  of  expediency,  the  substitution  of  news  for 
ethics,  information  for  inspiration,  and  paying  adver- 
tisements for  honest  leading  articles.  But  it  is  when 
these  mean  standards  are  applied  to  international  affairs 
that  the  jeopardy  into  which  nations  are  brought  by 
their  newspapers  becomes  visible ; for  an  organ  that 
has  systematically  wasted  itself  and  its  public  upon  the 
small  ends  of  domestic  self-interest  cannot  at  a bound 
rise  to  those  heights  of  magnanimity,  justice,  tolera- 
tion, breadth  of  view,  from  which  alone  foreign  rela- 
tions can  be  amply  surveyed  and  sanely  discussed.  A 
commercial  paper  naturally  becomes  a war  paper.  The 
journalist,  by  those  forces  he  is  himself  largely  respon- 
sible for  creating,  is  driven  into  mean  constructions 
and  narrow  interpretations,  by  which  he  yet  further 
inflames  the  minds  of  his  own  countrymen  and  exas- 
perates the  nation  with  which  difference  has  arisen, 
until  passion  submerges  reason  on  both  sides  and  peace 
recedes  toward  the  impossibilities.  The  tendencies  of 
modern  commercialism  have  aggravated  rather  than 
diminished  the  vices  long  since  noted  by  Bentham 
when  he  declared:  “Injustice,  oppression,  fraud,  lying, 
whatever  acts  would  be  crimes,  whatever  habits  would 
be  vices,  if  manifested  in  the  pursuit  of  individual  inter- 
ests, when  manifested  in  pursuit  of  national  interests  be- 
come sublimated  into  virtues.  Let  any  man  declare  who 
has  ever  read  or  heard  an  English  newspaper  whether 


208 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


this  be  not  the  constant  tenor  of  the  notions  they  con- 
vey. Party,  on  this  one  point,  makes  no  difference. 
However  hostile  to  one  another  on  all  other  points,  on 
this  they  have  never  but  one  voice  — they  write  with 
the  utmost  harmony.  Such  are  the  opinions,  and  to 
these  opinions  the  facts  are  accommodated  as  of  course. 
Who  would  blush  to  misrepresent  when  misrepresenta- 
tion is  a virtue?”1  Neither  can  the  press  of  one  nation 
claim  nobler  manners  than  the  rest,  for  the  financial 
motive  is  at  the  root  of  all  alike ; and  while  one  will 
gravely  chide  the  extravagances,  vaporings,  and  belli- 
cose nonsense  of  the  foreigner,  it  will,  when  the  cases 
are  reversed,  repeat  them  on  its  own  account.  “The 
efforts  of  [the  foreigner’s]  war  party,  malignant  and  con- 
temptible as  their  tactics  have  been  in  many  respects, 
have  been  too  successful”  ;2  yet  the  same  censor  is 
found  steadily  on  the  side  of  every  warmonger  amongst 
the  governments  of  its  own  country.  There  is  no  meas- 
ure to  the  sonorous  dignity  with  which  Satan  can  rebuke 
sin,  or  to  the  screech  with  which  he  can  excite  it.  ■ 

Since  the  stakes  of  commerce,  through  artificial 
economic  conditions,  continue  to  gravitate  into  fewer 
and  fewer  hands,  it  follows  that  the  press  lends  itself 
to  the  same  manipulations  as  other  capitalistic  concerns, 
— to  combinations,  monopolies,  and  conspiracies  against 
the  common  good.  The  enormous  and  terrific  power  of 
a conspirator  press  is  beginning  to  affect  minds  not 
commonly  alarmist  or  particularly  zealous  in  the  cause 
of  liberty,  though  the  peoples  of  the  civilized  world 
have  not  yet  comprehended  the  shape  and  extent  of  the 


TO  THE  JOURNALIST 


209 


terror.  This  latest  evolution  of  capitalism  into  the 
newspaper  ring,  controlling  the  stops  of  the  mighty 
organ  of  public  sentiment  and  able  to  play  tunes  of 
its  own  choosing,  with  plans  so  vast  as  to  include  wars 
and  extinction  of  states  as  passing  details,  powerful 
enough  to  seize  the  political  machinery  of  a country 
as  a means  towards  the  exploitation  of  its  economic 
resources,  lawless  enough  to  press  governments  with 
their  armed  forces  and  the  taxes  of  their  citizens  into  its 
service,  arrogant  enough  (especially  the  organs  of  any 
capital  city,  standing  in  closest  relation  to  the  govern- 
ing classes)  to  give  forth  its  voice  as  the  voice  of  govern- 
ment,— this  is  a portent  too  vast  and  shapeless  to  be  yet 
understood, but, like  theshape  of  Death  that  met  Milton’s 
Satan  at  the  gates  of  hell,  gradually  becomes  clearer  as 
it  uprears  its  horrid  front  against  the  civilized  world.  1 

When  a group  of  international  financiers  find  it  de- 
sirable to  bring  about  a war,  their  first  business  is  to 
secure  the  press  of  the  country  or  colony  against  which^ 
their  mischief  is  devised,  and  since  their  means  are  un- 
limited they  find  few  obstacles  insuperable.  Such  papers 
as  hold  out  against  the  combine  find  themselves  sub- 
jected to  persecution  and  harassment  in  a thousand 
different  ways,  with  the  result  that  their  advertisements 
are  curtailed,  their  circulation  is  diminished,  and  their 
influence  reduced  to  a minimum.  The  next  step  is  to 
import  journalists  who,  for  certain  sums  of  money, 
can  be  relied  on  to  voice  the  policy  of  the  syndicate 
and  fabricate  such  news  as  may  be  necessary  for  their 
purpose  ; whilst  these  truly  “ inspired  ” pressmen,  as 


210 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


correspondents  to  the  papers  of  the  home  country,  will 
be  able  to  manufacture  opinion  wherever  the  language 
of  that  particular  nation  is  spoken.  Credible  authori- 
ties within  their  own  ranks  testify  in  terms  such  as 
these  : “You  are  getting  no  truth  in  regard  to  affairs 
here,  because  the  press  has  to  write  up  to  the  feeling 
of  the  magnates.  I am  beginning  to  believe  that  the 
British  press  is  Britain’s  greatest  danger  in  colonial 
affairs  because  of  the  influence  that  is  brought  to  bear 
upon  the  men  of  the  pen”  ;3  or  these:  “I  think  it  is 
in  the  interest  of  humanity  generally  that  we  should 
look  facts  in  the  face,  and  not  allow  ourselves  to  be 
deceived  by  the  narratives  of  special  correspondents 
who  know  full  well  how  short  would  be  their  shrift  if 
they  dared  to  paint,  or  even  to  sketch  with  the  lightest 
touch,  the  darker  scenes  of  the  war.  Few  of  them, 
indeed,  know  all  that  occurs,  and  if  they  did  a false 
shame  and  a spurious  patriotism  would  probably  induce 
them  to  hide  it.  No  man  wishes  to  face  the  furious 

invective  that  has  been  poured  on  Mr.  ; money 

and  labor  and  influence  in  high  places  will  be  used  for 
all  they  are  worth  to  prove  him  a liar;  and  libel  and 
persecution  are  all  the  rewards  he  can  ever  hope  to 
receive.” 4 Even  with  these  means,  however,  the  re- 
sources of  conspiracy  are  by  no  means  exhausted  ; for 
the  clique  are  rich  enough  to  buy  control  over  many 
home  papers  and  to  secure  the  dismissal  of  such  editors 
as  decline  to  write  to  order. 

The  machinery,  being  thus  created,  is  set  to  work ; 
the  bought  papers,  foreign  or  colonial,  supply  a stream 
of  editorials,  correspondence,  news,  to  the  squared 


TO  THE  JOURNALIST 


21  I 


papers  at  home ; cable  and  post  transmit  a practically 
unanimous  testimony  and  stream  of  information ; the 
general  press  agencies  are  also,  for  the  same  reasons, 
in  the  swim  ; entire  volumes  of  leading  articles,  con- 
cocted, ready-made,  fully  written,  will  be  sent  into 
every  newspaper  office  in  the  land  for  the  free  use  of 
editors  and  writers  5 ; and  everything  is  ready  to  bring 
about  a conflict  that  shall  be  good  for  business.  In  a 
much  larger  way  than  even  Lowell  imagined,  an  editor 
“ blows  up  the  flames  of  political  discord  for  no  other 
occasion  than  that  he  may  thereby  handily  boil  his  own 
pot.”  The  necessity  for  military  action  will  be  drummed 
into  the  public.  It  will  be  found  easy  to  make  impu- 
tations of  disloyalty  against  sections  of  colonists,  and 
of  actual  conspiracy  against  a friendly  state ; and  by 
dint  of  repeating  them  over  and  over  again,  like  an 
advertisement,  in  the  pages  of  a hundred  different 
papers,  the  people  will  certainly  be  made  to  believe 
them.  And  since  every  government  makes  mistakes 
and  involves  some  abuses,  the  familiar  processes  of 
suppression,  misrepresentation,  exaggeration,  will  com- 
monly go  far  to  secure  that  exasperation  of  spirit  neces- 
sary to  bring  about  hostilities ; but  when  facts  fail, 
fictions  will  readily  be  substituted,  for  no  “ kept  ” thing 
can  be  amenable  to  the  recognized  laws  of  honor.  The 
newspaper  at  this  stage  ceases  to  discharge  the  func- 
tion for  which  it  was  created,  — to  be  a medium,  namely, 
for  the  dissemination  of  news,  — and  becomes  a pam- 
phlet for  the  ends  of  propaganda,  partisanship,  popular 
perversion ; and  this  is  what  the  conspirators  term 
proceeding  by  “ constitutional  ” means. 


212 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


After  a war  has  been  successfully  engineered  the 
conspirators’  press  is  reenforced  by  auxiliaries  of  most 
tremendous  power,  — being  nothing  less  than  parlia- 
ment, army  and  navy,  foreign  and  colonial  offices,  and 
every  department  of  the  government  concerned,  all 
of  which  now  stand  committed  to  see  the  thing  suc- 
cessfully through,  without  reference  to  the  methods 
by  which  it  has  been  brought  about.  Having  annexed 
these,  the  conspirators  are  assured  of  their  assistance 
in  cooking  news  and  fabricating  reports,  censoring 
telegrams,  putting  opposition  newspapers  under  martial 
law,  mutilating  dispatches,  minimizing  the  nation’s 
losses  and  exaggerating  the  enemy’s,  by  which  means 
the  heart  of  the  people  is  kept  up  to  fighting  pitch. 
“We  have  before  called  attention,”  writes  a distin- 
guished war  correspondent,  “ to  the  singular  economy 
of  truth  in  the  official  telegrams  from  South  Africa, 
and  many  quite  serious  engagements  have  either  not 
been  mentioned  at  all  or  have  been  treated  as  trifles. 
. . . Now  we  are  sorry  to  note  that  the  weekly  list 
of  casualties  has  been  stopped.  Apparently  it  was 
having  too  great  an  effect  upon  the  country,  and  it  is 
now  published  only  once  a month,  which  virtually  sup- 
presses the  news  altogether,  and  prevents  observers 
at  home  from  seeing  what  is  the  precise  effect  on  our- 
selves of  the  labors  of  generals  in  this  or  that  section 
of  the  country.”  6 When  the  coveted  territory  has  been 
conquered  and  annexed,  the  same  methods  will  be  im- 
mediately resorted  to ; the  ring  will  secure  a news- 
paper monopoly,  putting  its  own  color  on  public  affairs, 
nor  will  there  be  an  independent  organ  to  utter  a word 


TO  THE  JOURNALIST 


213 


of  protest  or  explanation.  The  people,  meantime,  for- 
getting the  poisoned  source  of  their  information,  swal- 
low it  all  and  are  beguiled  to  their  own  hurt.  And  here 
arises  a double  loss  and  evil ; for  those  people  who  are 
alive  to  the  danger  will  not  believe  a hireling  pen  even 
when  it  speaks  the  truth.  A known  baseness  of  motive 
is  held  to  prove  an  opinion  baseless.  None  believes 
a war  paper  unless  he  first  believes  in  the  war.  A 
“ yellow  ” press  suggests  a jaundiced  pressman  ; and 
the  jaundiced  eye  sees  everything  yellow.  Only  a jingo 
public  credit  a jingo  paper;  for  both  alike  see  contem- 
porary history  through  the  distorting  medium  of  the 
war  frenzy ; whilst  sane  and  healthy  minds  will  fre- 
quently reject  and  always  doubt  their  interpretations. 
It  is  thus  that  war  damages  the  reputation  as  well  as 
the  character  of  the  journalist. 

When  they  have  successfully  coerced  a government, 
the  conspirators  next  set  themselves  to  persuade  the 
conscience  of  a people ; and  as  this  is  most  effectually 
accomplished  by  representing  the  people  against  whom 
designs  are  entertained  as  unworthy  of  political  liberty, 
they  initiate  a campaign  of  slander  which,  with  such 
machinery,  cannot  fail  of  its  purpose.  The  “ kept  ” 
press  thus  becomes  a “reptile”  press,  pouring  venom 
into  the  national  mind,  acting  over  again  the  parts  of 
that  serpent  who  insinuated  slander  into  the  ear  of  un- 
corrupt humanity,  and  of  that  brother  who  poisoned  a 
king  through  his  ear  preparatory  to  usurping  his  throne. 
The  Fourth  Estate  assumes  the  horrid  outline  of  a 
portentous  fiction  factory,  turning  out  the  completed 


214 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


article  in  quantities  so  prodigious  as  to  defy  all  historic 
parallel.  In  carrying  on  the  work  successfully  begun, 
according  to  legend,  by  the  father  of  lies,  it  is  ably 
seconded  by  its  auxiliaries  in  the  illustrated  papers, 
which  engage  the  pencil  of  the  artist,  the  camera  of 
the  photographer,  the  die  of  the  engraver,  and  all  the 
resources  of  modern  pictorial  art  to  carry  the  stream 
of  poison  through  the  avenue  of  the  eye ; so  that  if 
an  exceptionally  healthy  spirit  throws  off  the  malign 
influences  which  assail  it  by  one  entrance,  it  may 
succumb  to  those  which  bear  in  upon  it  from  another. 
That  which  climbed  to  public  favor  as  a medium  for 
the  dissemination  of  news  visibly  degenerates  into  a 
vehicle  for  the  transmission  of  lies.  Lies  are  manu- 
factured as  puddlers,  demon-like  and  in  an  atmosphere 
infernal,  burn  ore  into  iron.  Falsehoods  are  bought 
and  sold  in  open  market  as  brokers  vend  shares  in 
valuable  properties.  The  very  placards  lie  shamelessly, 
a scorn  and  a hissing  to  every  passer-by.  Instead  of 
an  editor  sitting  with  his  ear  to  the  nerves  of  the 
world,  receiving  a stream  of  facts,  impressions,  truths, 
which  radiate  towards  him  from  the  four  corners  of  the 
globe,  and  authentically  dispatching  the  same  to  every 
quarter,  we  get  the  picture  of  a spider  sedulously  launch- 
ing films  of  telegraph  and  post,  cable  and  telephone,  to 
the  uttermost  ends  of  the  earth,  and  sending  through 
them  shocks  of  conspiracy  to  paralyze  the  moral  sense 
and  lure  the  nations  into  a snare.  The  leading  article 
beguiled  us  and  we  did  fight. 

The  strategic  value  of  lying  has  been  sufficiently 
recognized  in  actual  warfare  but  not  in  the  press  which 


TO  THE  JOURNALIST 


215 


makes  warfare  possible.  When  a Hebrew  general  de- 
sired to  capture  a certain  city,  it  is  written  that  he 
first  caused  the  priests  to  compass  it  for  seven  con- 
secutive days,  blowing  their  silver  trumpets  as  they 
went,  till,  on  the  seventh  day,  the  people  shouted  their 
war  cry,  the  walls  came  tumbling  down,  and  the  city 
was  annexed.  Similarly,  when  a section  of  modern 
capitalism  covets  any  state,  it  first  sets  the  priests  of 
the  press,  ably  seconded  by  those  in  the  pulpits,  to 
blare  forth  lies,  till  the  people’s  temper  has  been  suf- 
ficiently exalted,  at  which  point  they  set  up  a terri- 
ble clamor,  the  fighting  man  steps  to  the  front,  and 
the  deed  is  done.  From  the  financial  conspirator  to  the 
bought  newspaper,  from  the  bought  newspaper  to  the  f, 
hired  lie,  from  the  hired  lie  to  the  criminal  war,  is 
the  order  of  events  which,  like  some  hell-born  phantas- 
magoria, is  dimly  seen  to  be  crossing  this  stage  of 
things.7 

A capitalized  press  renders  false  witness  possible  on 
a scale  never  before  approached  in  the  history  of  the 
world.  It  is  possible  to  secure  the  condemnation  of  now 
a man,  now  a nation,  on  hearsay  evidence,  for  no  juster 
reason  than  that  such  condemnation  is  required  by  the 
schemers  who  exploit  all  governments,  armies,  taxes, 
democracies.  It  is  possible  now  to  pour  in  floods  of 
letters,  telegrams,  rumors,  of  the  most  abominable 
falseness,  against  a people  and  its  leaders  ; to  represent 
them  as  loathsome,  crafty,  cruel,  treacherous,  cowardly, 
hypocritical,  and  what  not 8 ; to  invent  outrages  and 
atrocities  of  which  they  were  never  guilty ; to  get 
men  kicked  to  death  — in  the  correspondents’  column, 


21 6 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


children  tortured  — in  double-leaded  type,  women  out- 
raged — in  the  scare  heading,  prisoners  massacred  — 
on  the  posters,  till  it  is  made  to  appear  a virtue  to 
sweep  such  wretches  from  the  face  of  the  earth.9  The 
conspiring  prints  will  even,  with  barefaced  cynicism, 
announce  that  they  can  supply  more  atrocities  on 
demand10;  yet  the  people  will  not  see  that  they  are 
being  fooled.  Dropping  the  exposed  falsehood,  they  fly, 
wide-mouthed,  to  swallow  the  next,  until,  surfeited, 
stuffed,  gorged,  and  sickened  with  falsehoods,  they 
have  no  moral  energy  left  to  believe  the  truth  even 
when  it  comes,  but  drift  like  dead  dogs  hither  and 
thither  amid  the  bloody  froth  of  newspaper  reports. 
There  is  something  more  terrible  than  to  see  a calumny 
launched  against  a nation  for  the  sake  of  destroying  it, 
and  that  is  an  obsession  of  the  spirit  of  falsehood  by 
which  the  different  calumniators  persuade  themselves 
that  they  believe  each  other’s  calumnies.  A sacred  writ- 
ing declares  that  when  people  love  a lie  their  doom  is  to 
be  given  over  by  the  Eternal  to  strong  delusion,  that 
they  should  believe  a lie.  But  when  the  doomed  thing 
is  a once  “free”  press  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  de- 
luded thing  a once  aspiring  democracy  on  the  other, 
Hope  herself  almost  swoons  into  despair.  It  is  as 
though  Nathaniel  the  guileless  should  degenerate  into 
Ananias,  and  Mary  the  Virgin  into  Sapphira, — whilst 
the  feet  of  the  young  men  that  shall  carry  them  both 
out  are  even  now  at  the  door. 

In  times  of  peace  the  partisanship  of  the  press  is 
not  more  pronounced  or  offensive  than  that  of  the 
party  man,  but  in  war  time  it  becomes  heated,  unjust, 


TO  THE  JOURNALIST 


217 


scandalous,  cruel.  When  a paper  holds  its  own  against 
formidable  competitors  of  opposite  politics  there  is  a 
reasonable  guarantee  that  between  them  truth  will 
out ; but  when  there  is  nothing  to  read  save  the  con- 
spiring organs,  we  get  only  one  side  of  things,  and 
even  that  is  dictated  not  by  patriotism  but  by  finance. 
The  innocent  imagine  and  the  malevolent  pretend 
that  the  extraordinary  unanimity  of  the  press  in  war 
time  puts  the  fictions  recorded  and  the  policy  defended 
beyond  question ; whilst  through  every  pretense  of 
Esau’s  hands,  garments,  and  cajoling  venison,  the  voice 
is  the  one  voice  of  the  conspirator  Jacob.  A perusal 
of  the  “ Rules  for  Newspaper  Correspondents  [“  those 
newly  invented  curses  to  armies”]  at  the  Seat  of  War,” 
set  forth  in  the  Soldier s Pocket  Book}1  shows  how 
the  general  edits  the  editor,  and  how  the  censor  holds 
himself  ready  to  practice  every  species  of  mendacity 
from  the  suppression  of  the  true  to  the  suggestion  of 
the  false,  according  to  the  exigencies  of  the  military 
situation.  It  is  there  set  forth  that  licenses  must  be 
obtained  from  the  military  authorities,  will  not  be 
granted  to  those  they  consider  “undesirable,”  “retired 
officers  will  be  preferred,”  and  they  will  all  be  “under 
the  Mutiny  Act.”  “ This  Press  Censor  will  have  the 
power  of  insisting  that  all  communications  . . . must 
be  sent  through  him ; and  he  may  detam  or  alter  the 
communication  should  he  deem  it  injurious  to  the  in- 
terests of  the  army  ” . . . “ give  as  much  information 
as  he  may  consider  advisable  and  consistent  with  his 
duty  . . . authorized  to  tell  them  everything  that 
can  be  published  with  safety  to  the  army  . . . each 


2l8 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


newspaper  will  send  him  a copy  of  every  issue  of  its 
papers.”  Thus  to  the  picturesque  mendacities  of  the 
war  correspondent  who,  in  the  words  of  one  of  them, 
“ if  he  has  been  within  a hundred  miles  of  a battle,  will 
cheerfully  lie  to  you  when  describing  that  battle,”  12  are 
added  the  official  mendacities  of  the  general  and  the 
censor,  who  will  “ detain  or  alter  ” his  message  according 
to  “the  interests  of  the  army.”  Under  such  circum- 
stances no  rational  being  expects  truth.  No  newspaper 
corruption  can  be  so  disastrous  to  the  public  mind  as 
that  which  comes  from  interested  ownership  seconded 
by  censorship  of  the  military  authorities,  for  such  a 
press  is  commonly  taken  as  independent  and  unbiased, 
whilst  all  the  time  it  is  controlled,  dictated  to,  not 
merely  inspired  but  conspired,  wielding  all  the  corrupt- 
ing power  not  merely  of  the  open  lie  but  of  the  lie 
taken  for  truth.  Its  influence  is  like  that  of  Arthur’s 
false  queen,  who  being 

Allow’d 

Her  station,  taken  everywhere  for  pure, 

She,  like  a new  disease,  unknown  to  men, 

Creeps,  no  precaution  used,  among  the  crowd, 

Makes  wicked  lightnings  of  her  eyes,  and  saps 
The  fealty  of  our  friends,  and  stirs  the  pulse 
With  devil’s  leaps,  and  poisons  half  the  young. 

That  unique  position  occupied  by  the  journalism  of 
a free  country  adds  to  its  enormous  mischief-making 
power  when  those  harmless  little  ways  it  has  acquired 
in  peace  time  become  embittered  and  accentuated  by 
the  passions  and  interests  of  war.  Its  present  method 
of  describing  instead  of  reporting  debates  and  speeches 


TO  THE  JOURNALIST 


219 


lends  itself  to  manipulation  of  news  to  suit  its  policy. 
Its  judgment  of  what  is  important  and  unimportant 
permits  it  to  suppress  undesired  facts,  speeches,  meet- 
ings, and  give  prominence  to  those  of  opposite  nature. 
A meeting  will  be  reported  without  giving  a line  of  the 
chairman’s  address  because  it  chances  to  be  a reasoned 
rebuke  of  the  war  spirit ; but  the  speeches  which  follow 
will  be  put  in  if  they  happen  to  be  of  a different  color 
from  his.  Whilst,  careful  of  its  own  credit,  it  will  print 
official  news,  it  will  also  select  from  the  mass  of  un- 
official but  still  authentic  matter  such  fragments  as 
suit  its  purpose,  cleverly  deciding  the  place  as  well  as 
space  assigned  to  such  material,  according  to  its  color. 
It  is  not  difficult  to  make  the  news  column  support  the 
leading  article.  If  a peace  meeting  gets  broken  up, 
the  great  fact  will  be  recorded  in  several  columns ; 
whilst  a score  of  peace  meetings,  held  in  the  same  city, 
passing  peace  resolutions  unanimously,  will  not  be  so 
much  as  noticed.  If  a peace  advocate  gets  stoned,  the 
event  will,  like  the  fall  of  an  empire,  have  prominence 
on  the  very  posters  ; but  if  the  same  advocate  goes  to 
the  same  town,  addresses  a large  and  peaceful  assembly, 
and  gets  a peace  resolution  passed  with  unanimity,  the 
fact  will  receive  a finger  breadth  in  an  obscure  corner. 
If  a book  is  published  favorable  to  the  war  policy,  it 
will  be  reviewed  at  length,  with  commendations;  but 
if  a different  book  is  printed,  able,  responsible,  in- 
formed, it  will  get  a few  lines.  Letters  from  local  cor- 
respondents are  printed  or  suppressed  in  larger  numbers 
according  as  they  favor  or  oppose  the  war.  These  are 
some  of  the  obvious  ways  in  which  a war  paper  sorts 


4 


220 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


its  news  to  suit  its  policy  and  by  which  the  people  are 
kept  in  ignorance  of  the  true  drift  of  things.  The  effect 
upon  the  people  who  are  deceived  is  manifest ; but 
what  will  be  the  effect  upon  the  journalist  who  de- 
ceives ? The  demoralization  of  our  Mercury  amongst 
the  gods  of  the  modern  world  affords,  were  there  no 
other,  sufficient  reason  to  condemn  war. 

The  Fourth  Estate,  thus  owned  and  edited,  can  be 
depended  on  to  support  to  the  bitter  end  whatever  war 
is  going,  and  every  measure  which  the  other  Three 
Estates  may  count  necessary  to  “ see  it  through.” 
“ There  should  be  no  hesitation  in  adopting  the  policy 
and  the  means  necessary  to  attain  the  end  in  view  with 
the  utmost  rapidity  and  completeness  ” . . . “smashed 
on  thoroughly  scientific  principles  ” . . . 13  “indifferent 
to  the  method  by  which  that  end  may  be  secured  . . . 
if  the  work  can  be  done  better  by  war,  then  let  it  be  by 
war ; war  with  no  more  lamenting  of  the  means  than  a 
surgeon  makes  over  an  operation  ; war  without  humani- 
tarian hysterics  or  the  weak-minded  rhapsodies  of  con- 
fused religion ; war  at  once  and  war  in  earnest ; war 
without  hesitation,  and  war  without  compunction ; war 
that  will  be  swift,  short,  and  shattering.  . . . Short, 
sharp,  and  decisive  war  . . . attack  them  promptly, 
crushingly,  and  remorselessly,  walking,  as  it  were,  over 
them,  and  trampling  them  underfoot,  until  we  are  in  a 
position  to  dictate  terms  at  [the  capital].”  14  A war  press 
will  decline  to  recognize  any  higher  motive  than  self- 
interest,  any  higher  policy  than  might  against  right,  and 
will  bring  all  the  resources  of  literature  and  sophism 


TO  THE  JOURNALIST 


22  I 


to  justify  the  programme  of  the  tiger  and  the  shark. 
The  word  “magnanimous”  is  only  “‘foolish’  writ  large 
in  four  syllables  for  two.”  . . . 15  “Humanity”  is 
merely  “hysterical  regard  for  a fetich.”16  Denying 
justice  abroad,  it  is  prepared  to  repudiate  fair  play  at 
home ; advocating  fire  and  sword  against  an  enemy,  it 
cannot  be  expected  to  do  other  than  suppress  his  apolo- 
gists by  thinly  veiled  incentives  to  violence  and,  after 
successful  riot  and  assault  of  peace  advocates,  by  lame 
palliations  or  bold  justifications.  The  peace  advocate 
is  denounced  as  “ in  the  fullest  sense  of  the  word  a 
murderer,  and  a traitor  as  well.”  17  That  journalism 
which  the  pioneers  sweated  to  make  free  degenerates 
into  an  engine  for  the  suppression  of  free  speech  and 
the  right  of  public  meeting.  No  sooner  does  war  begin 
to  loom  in  the  distance  than,  like  hounds  scenting  blood 
from  afar,  the  papers  set  up  a clamor,  in  the  spirit  of 
the  noisy  thing  they  call  patriotism.  They  work  upon 
the  nerves  of  a population  grown  excitable  by  the  pres- 
sure of  modern  life,  its  pleasure  seeking,  its  whisky 
drinking  ; their  appeal  is  to  vulgar  pride  and  the  in- 
stincts of  the  bully ; and  the  only  difference  between 
them  and  the  hooligan  of  the  slum  is  a certain  pomp 
and  circumstance  of  language,  — as  when  an  antagonist 
on  a certain  trivial  occasion  is  warned  not  “ to  trade 
too  much  on  the  long-suffering  of  a proud  and  suscep- 
tible people.”  18  The  practical  intention  is  the  same. 
Pressmen  act  more  like  corner  boys  getting  up  a dog 
fight  than  responsible  citizens  dealing  with  the  life  or 
death  of  nations.  Open  the  page  of  modern  history 
where  one  will,  one  meets  the  “patriotic”  journalist 


222 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


dashing  oil  daily  upon  the  already  flaming  fires  of 
national  jealousy  and  discord.  When  unoffending  Japan 
is  being  opened  up,  Sir  E.  Reed  testifies  : “ It  is  fair 
to  observe  that  writers  who  show  themselves  very  capa- 
ble of  painting  in  the  darkest  colors  the  wrongs  done 
to  ourselves  somehow  fail  even  to  notice  the  wrongs 
to  which  the  Japanese  had  to  submit.  The  insults 
which  they  had  to  endure  — and  down  to  this  moment 
have  had  to  endure — from  the  foreign  press  in  Yoko- 
hama were  of  the  most  galling  nature.”  19  A large 
section  of  the  modern  press  tends  to  war  as  the  sparks 
fly  upward.  Declamation  in  the  leading  article  pro- 
duces delirium  in  an  ill-balanced  public,  whose  frenzy 
is  further  excited  by  cartoons  exhibiting  to  the  eye 
the  conquering  magnificence  of  the  nation  as  against 
the  mean  poltroonery  of  the  foe.  The  weakness  of  the 
newspaper  is  that  it  lives  by  its  circulation,  and  is 
driven  to  compete  for  circulation  with  its  war-frenzied 
contemporaries,  — shriek  answering  to  shriek,  curse  to 
curse. 20  Then  arrives  the  age  of  unreason,  and  a lead- 
ing journal  can  be  tolerated  in  the  infamous  boast 
printed  over  its  title  that  it  has  “ made  the  war.”  21 
The  danger  to  humanity  involved  in  an  ill-balanced,  ex- 
citable, sensation-monging,  capitalized  press  is  plainly 
revealed  in  the  events  that  precipitate  national  contests  ; 
it  is  one  of  the  distinctive  perils  of  the  twentieth  cen- 
tury. It  sends  the  war  tide  throbbing  through  men’s 
veins,  feeds  the  lust  of  conquest  and  the  appetite  for 
territory,  all  the  time  invoking  reason  and  conscience, 
putting  on  airs  of  self-righteousness,  till  it  has  added  the 
sin  of  hypocrisy  to  the  sins  of  theft,  falsehood,  slander, 


TO  THE  JOURNALIST 


223 


and  murder.  In  time  of  war  it  requires  but  a feeble 
effort  of  imagination  to  see  reiving  Rob  Roy  seated 
in  the  editorial  chair,  ably  seconded  by  the  facile  Dugald 
Dalgetty  as  news  editor,  and  De  Quincey’s  artistic  Mr. 
Williams  as  war  correspondent. 

The  demoralizing  effects  of  war  upon  a nation’s 
journalism  are,  however,  brought  into  the  terrible  relief 
of  blood  and  fire  by  the  actual  events  of  a campaign. 
Having  frankly  lapsed  into  paganism,  it  writes  in  terms 
of  paganism  rather  than  those  a Christian  civilization 
would  demand.  There  is  a type  of  war  correspondent 
who  can  be  described  only  by  one  of  the  class,  — “men 
given  to  foul  speech,  drunkenness,  dishonorable  dealing, 
and  disregard  for  the  rules  by  which  they  have  agreed 
to  abide  . . . men  who  drink  themselves  delirious,  men 
whose  speech  would  shock  a pirate  crew.”  22  The  worst 
of  them  can  be  trusted  to  describe  a single  murder  in 
terms  of  reprobation,  yet  the  best  of  them  will,  when 
the  murder  is  that  of  a nation,  urge  it  as  a sacred  duty, 
and  narrate  the  commission  of  it  in  words  of  glowing 
exultation.  Sometimes  the  language  is  daintier,  — “the 
reduction  of  their  personnel  by  a prolonged  process  of 
attrition,”23 — but  the  meaning  is  extermination.  As  it 
is  their  special  business  to  take  away  the  enemy’s  char- 
acter, preparatory  to  the  soldiers  taking  away  his  life, 
they  insist  that  he  should  be  “slain  with  the  same  ruth- 
lessness that  they  slay  a plague-infected  rat.  Exeter 
Hall  may  shriek,  but  blood  there  will  be  and  plenty  of 
it,  and  the  more  the  better  . . . enable  us  to  find  the 
excuse  that  Imperial  Great  Britain  is  fiercely  anxious 


224 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


for  ...  to  blot  [them]  out  as  a nation,  to  turn  their 
land  into  avast  shambles.”  24  The  journalists  of  a war- 
ring nation  frequently  excel  its  fighting  men  in  ferocity, 
declaring  that  “vengeance,  prompt,  unfailing,  and  un- 
pitying, has  become  the  manifest  duty  of  the  com- 
manders,”25  cabling  messages  “with  the  object  of  giv- 
ing a lead  to  the  government  and  [the  general  in  the 
field].”  26  The  progress  of  a campaign  brings  a stage 
when  they  openly  advocate  the  murder  of  prisoners 
and  the  desolation  of  the  land,  assuring  the  soldier  that 
he  will  be  supported  by  public  opinion  in  proceeding 
to  these  awful  extremities.  Day  after  day  they  raise  a 
persistent  clamor  for  the  naming  of  a date  after  which 
“ we  shall  refuse  the  rights  of  belligerents  to  those  re- 
maining in  the  field  ” 27  . . . “ summarily  hanged  when 
caught  — hanged,  not  shot  — ...  we  are  looking  wist- 
fully towards  [the  commander]”28  . . . “we  should 
like  to  believe  . . . that  [the  commander]  has  issued 
orders  that  no  prisoners  are  to  be  taken,  that  is  to  say, 
that  no  quarter  is  to  be  given  ” 29  . . . “ to  treat  them 
as  murderers  who  must  be  exterminated”30  . . . “the 
services  of  the  provost  marshal  become  more  effective 
than  those  of  the  strategist  . . . the  imperial  govern- 
ment need  not  be  afraid  to  act  with  vigor.”31  Far  re- 
moved from  personal  contact  with  the  harrowing  scenes 
of  the  campaign,  exasperated  by  the  suspense  (and 
perhaps  expense)  of  a long-extended  struggle,  and  desti- 
tute of  that  sympathetic  imagination  which  presents  to 
the  mind  a full  picture  of  those  horrors  from  which 
distance  debars  the  eye,  they  will  even  call  for  action 
against  women  and  children,  in  order,  through  them, 


TO  THE  JOURNALIST 


225 


to  strike  at  the  men  on  the  field,  for  the  women  and 
children  are  also  “ combatants  ...  to  be  dealt  with 
on  that  footing,”  32  and  will  exhort  the  commander  to 
treat  a heroic  leader  on  the  other  side  to  “ a drum-head 
court-martial  and  the  nearest  tree.”  33  When,  goaded 
by  their  pens,  the  soldier  harries  a land  by  fire  and 
sword,  they  will  confess  to  “a  joy  of  satisfaction  when 
the  smoke  [of  a farm]  went  up  . . . these  unkempt,  ill- 
conditioned  rebels,  these  human  vermin,  have  been 
treated  as  though  on  a level  with  respectable  Kaffirs 
...  a beast  of  a rebel  is  getting  his  deserts.”  34  Hav- 
ing thus  hounded  on  the  hired  homicide  to  turn  himself 
into  a common  murderer,  they  look  with  equal  mag- 
nanimity on  his  degradation  to  the  level  of  a common 
thief;  for  “next  to  the  fierce  joy  of  fighting,  that  of 
satisfying  the  primeval  instinct  of  robber  man  is  the 
highest  pleasure  which  war  affords.  Add  the  promise 
of  plunder  to  the  certainty  of  a fight,  and  you  increase 
by  tenfold  the  efficiency  of  any  army  in  the  world.”35 
Thus  the  journalists. 

The  religious  press,  however,  we  say,  will  be  a refuge 
from  these  distresses,  and,  being  edited  by  Christian 
men,  will  voice  the  Christian  ethic  as  against  the 
heathenism  of  the  “ secular”  press.  Alas!  For  it  turns 
out  that  the  “religious”  press  is  manned  by  writers 
who  are  ecclesiastics  rather  than  ethicists,  and  church- 
men before  they  are  Christians.  It  also  has  gravitated 
into  the  hands  of  the  capitalists  to  a large  extent,  and, 
with  the  churches  it  represents,  is  dependent  upon  their 
patronage.  One  of  themselves  describes  the  position 


226 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


with  satirical  frankness:  “We  must  not  take  Christ  too 
literally  ; we  are  not  called  upon  to  be  losers  by  our 
religion.  If  in  business  we  have  to  compete  with 
worldly  rivals,  there  is  no  reason  why  we  should  handi- 
cap ourselves  by  a supersensitive  conscience.  In  order 
to  make  it  workable,  Christianity  must  be  worked  with 
an  alloy  of  common  sense ; just  as  gold  to  be  made 
usable  must  be  mixed  with  an  alloy  of  baser  metal.  An 
eighteen-carat  Christianity  is  what  the  world  wants.”36 
Those  who  oppose  a war  on  moral  or  religious  grounds 
might  naturally  be  expected  to  give  expression  to  their 
views  in  the  pages  of  a religious  newspaper,  but  if 
they  try,  they  will,  for  the  most  part,  find  themselves 
excluded.37  If  by  any  chance  a mildly  worded  remon- 
strance be  permitted  space,  it  will  be  duly  discounted 
by  the  militant  editor  in  a footnote  affirming  that  the 
writer  is  a most  ill-informed  person  or  so  blinded  by 
peace  prejudices  as  to  be  incapable  of  distinguishing 
black  from  white.  Official  assemblies  of  Moloch  minis- 
ters will,  by  resolution  and  manifesto,38  coach  the 
literary  organs  of  their  churches,  protesting  against  any 
endeavor  to  “ patch  up  peace  ” and  sending  their  official 
deliverances  round  the  entire  “religious”  press;  not 
seeing  or  not  caring  that  they  subjugate  religion  to 
politics,  humanity  to  sectarianism,  principle  to  expedi- 
ency, the  church  to  the  army,  and  Jesus  Christ  to 
Julius  Caesar.  “ Blind  leaders  of  the  blind  . . . and  if 
the  blind  lead  the  blind,  both  shall  fall  into  the  ditch.” 
Any  heathen  reading  the  religious  organs  of  a Christian 
people  in  war  time  would  come  to  the  inevitable  con- 
clusion that  they  had  entirely  given  up  whatever  faith 


TO  THE  JOURNALIST 


227 


they  ever  possessed  in  peace,  mercy,  brotherhood,  had 
ceased  to  read  the  Beatitudes,  and  forgotten  the  Ser- 
mon on  the  Mount.39  Week  after  week,  month  after 
month,  he  would  see  them  pouring  out  articles,  leaders, 
sermons,  speeches,  letters,  justifying  the  war  of  the 
day,  glorying  in  the  heroic  qualities  developed  in  the 
nation  by  a long-continued  course  of  slaughter,  — even 
if  the  victims  be  worshipers  of  the  same  God  and  be- 
lievers in  the  same  Christ,  — delighted  that  it  prepared 
the  way  for  the  gospel  and  the  missionary,  even  that  it 
led  to  more  saying  of  prayers.  Without  descending  to 
the  “ secular  ” press  in  sheer  brutality,  the  “ religious  ” 
press  exceeds  it  in  the  dissemination  of  that  sanctified 
sophistry  which  the  ecclesiastical  world  appears  to 
make  peculiarly  its  own.40  There  is  no  salvation  in 
the  religious  press. 

How  then  shall  we  be  saved  ? The  answer  can  be 
fully  stated  only  in  terms  which  include  the  conversion 
of  capitalism,  the  culture  of  democracy,  the  ethicizing 
of  religion,  the  substitution  of  solidarity  for  patriotism.  / 
Something  will  have  been  done  if  democracy  can  be 
warned  of  this  new  menace  to  its  liberties,  this  new 
obstruction  to  its  progress.  The  demoralization  of  the 
journalist  is  not  the  least  impressive  of  the  omens  of 
war. 


REFERENCES 

1.  Works , Vol.  II,  p.  556  (edition  of  1843). 

2.  Times , April  6,  1898. 

3.  A.  G.  Hales,  Daily  News,  December  27,  1904. 

4.  W.  T.  Stead,  What  is  now  being  done  in  South  Africa. 


228 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


5.  Manufacture  of  Leading  Articles  {New  Age , March 
14, 1901) : 

The  South  African  Association  has  issued  a circular  headed,  “ The 
Editors’  South  African  Note  Book  : Being  Notes  on  South  African 
Politics  for  the  Use  of  Editors.”  The  “ Note  Book  ” contains  “ articles  ” 
which  editors  are  entitled  to  use  “ freely.” 

“ Now,”  asks  Truth , “ what  is  the  avowed  aim  of  the  Imperial  South 
African  Association  ? To  furnish  provincial  papers  with  articles  gratis, 
which  they  are  to  use  as  though  they  were  written  in  the  offices  of  the 
papers.  The  editorial  ‘ we  ’ is  inserted  in  order  to  deceive  readers.  For 
instance,  one  of  the  gratis  articles  commences:  ‘We  owe  a debt  of 
gratitude  to  the  correspondent  of  the  Daily  Mail.'  I have  before  me 
a copy  of  the  Ayrshire  Observer , in  which  one  of  the  articles  printed  in 
No.  223  is  inserted  verbatim.  There  is  not  a hint  ora  suggestion  that 
it  is  not  written  by  the  editor  or  by  one  of  his  staff  under  his  control. 
We  may  assume  that,  if  223  successive  numbers  of  the  ‘ Note  Book  ’ have 
been  sent  to  provincial  editors,  many  as  well  as  the  inhabitants  of  Ayr- 
shire have  been  fooled  in  the  same  fashion.  When  these  dupes  thought 
that  they  were  reading  an  expression  of  the  independent  views  of  the  editor 
of  the  journal  that  they  bought,  they  were  really  reading  those  of  an  asso- 
ciation formed  for  the  express  purpose  of  influencing  public  opinion  in 
favour  of  the  Chamberlain-cum-Rhodes  policy  as  regards  South  Africa.” 

6.  Charles  Williams,  Morning  Leader , October  31,  1900. 

7.  Specimen  of  the  Newspaper  Lie,  here  preserved 
for  the  Curious,  like  a Fly  in  Amber  : 

Morning  Leader,  January  10,  1901. 

Mr.  Stead  telegraphed  yesterday  from  Hayling  Island  : “ The  Express 
this  morning  repeats  the  falsehood  which  it  circulated  yesterday  that  the 
British  officer  whose  letter  I published  in  “ Hell  Let  Loose  ” is  an  officer 
of  the  Salvation  Army.  In  reply  to  the  challenge  published  in  the  Express 
yesterday,  I telegraphed  an  emphatic  denial.  My  correspondent  holds 
the  Queen’s  commission,  and  is  now  in  command  of  British  troops  at 
the  front.  But  the  Express  suppresses  my  reply  and  repeats  its  falsehood. 
Hence  this  appeal  to  you  to  nail  this  lie  to  the  counter.” 

8.  A String  of  Pearls  hung  round  the  Neck  of 
Britain’s  Enemy  by  the  Newcastle  Daily  Chronicle  (see  The 
Editor  Edited , p.  21)  : 

The  most  unenlightened,  the  least  progressive,  the  most  tyrannical,  the 
most  corrupt,  and,  in  a word,  the  worst  section  of  the  Dutch  element  in 
South  Africa.  . . . 


TO  THE  JOURNALIST 


229 


The  nearest  analogy  that  white  civilization  presents  to  the  ignorant 
and  obstinate  tribes  of  colored  barbarism.  . . . 

A band  of  brigands  and  assassins.  . . . 

First  and  foremost  a bully,  with  most  of  a bully’s  characteristics.  . . . 

“ The  craftiest,  most  hypocritical,  most  dishonest,  most  untruthful, 
cruellest,  most  ignorant,  most  overbearing,  most  immoral  and  stupidest 
race  of  white  people  in  the  whole  world.” 

They  have  always  murdered  their  prisoners,  black  or  white,  when 
they  thought  they  safely  could.  . . . 

A horde  of  the  most  miserable  scoundrels  nature  has  produced.  . . . 

All  the  vices  of  the  Dervishes  and  none  of  their  virtues.  . . . 

Steyn  is  a liar.  . . . 

Stubborn,  cruel,  ferocious,  arrogant,  cunning,  treacherous,  and 
unscrupulous.  . . . 

Essentially  an  assassin.  . . . He  delights  to  kill  when  he  can  do  so  in 
security.  . . . 

The  pious  pig-breeder  of  Dewetsdorp  [De  Wet]. 

De  Wet  ...  a discredited  brigand  and  murderer.  . . . 

Ruffians  and  banditti.  . . . 

A savage,  and  as  a savage  he  should  be  treated.  . . . 

9.  Manufacture  of  Outrages: 

Testimony  of  J.  A.  Hobson,  (a)  Morning  Leader. 

I have  just  cut  to-day  from  a daily  paper  the  inclosed  cablegram. 
It  is  just  of  a kind  to  inflame  the  sentiments  of  Irish  Catholics,  who,  but 
for  the  cablegrams,  would  be  inclined  to  suspect  the  British  conduct  in 
forcing  the  war.  [The  “ inclosed  cablegram  ” reads  as  follows  :]  “ Boer 
desecration  and  burning  of  churches.  The  Boers  in  northern  Natal, 
before  evacuating  Newcastle  and  Dundee,  defiled  and  desecrated  the 
Catholic  churches  in  these  towns,  and  finally  set  fire  to  the  buildings.” 
I need  hardly  add  that  this  cable  statement  is  a lie. 

(h)  How  the  Press  was  Worked,  p.  12. 

Cape  Times  of  October  18th  : 

MURDER  THE  ENGLISH  (An  Appeal  in  the  Taal)  — natives 

INCITED  TO  MURDER 

Maritzburg,  October  18  [from  our  Correspondent].  — A lady  who 
arrived  here  with  her  family  from  Barberton  last  night  gives  a piteous 
account  of  things  in  that  neighborhood. 

She  says  that  renegade  Englishmen  are  rampant  in  the  outlying  dis 
tricts,  and  are  threatening  and  bullying  all  whites. 


230 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


A circular  emanating  from  the  office  of  a Dutch  newspaper,  printed  in 
the  Taal,  calls  upon  all  Boers,  as  a sacred  and  religious  duty  in  the  event 
of  a reverse,  to  use  their  utmost  endeavors  to  incite  the  natives  to  out- 
rage and  murder  all  English  women  and  children. 

The  alarm  in  the  isolated  places  is  intense,  and  a repetition  of  the 
massacres  of  the  Indian  Mutiny  is  feared. 

[Though  the  Cape  Times  was  appealed  to  for  the  name  of  the  Dutch 
newspaper,  and  for  a more  satisfactory  account  of  the  circular,  no  more 
was  heard  of  this  incident  : it  had  performed  its  part  and  passed  away. 
This  method  was  systematically  applied.] 

10.  Tunes  (Natal),  (see  How  the  Press  was  Worked,  p.  16). 

1 1.  Soldier's  Pocket  Book , pp.  170,  179. 

12.  Edgar  Wallace,  Daily  Mail,  October  2,  1901. 

13.  Times,  September  11,  1901,  and  October  23,  1902. 

14.  Newcastle  Daily  Chronicle,  September  8 and  30,  1899. 

15.  Pall  Mall  Gazette,  London,  April  12,  1901. 

16.  Daily  Mail,  April  13,  1901. 

17.  Globe , London,  March  5,  1902. 

Newspaper  Encouragements  to  Mob  Law.  See  War 
against  War  in  South  Africa,  pp.  39,  322,  342. 

18.  Daily  Telegraph,  October  26,  1904. 

19.  Japan,  Vol.  I,  p.  260. 

20.  The  Warmonging  Press  — Instances  from  Various 
Newspapers  (see  Pe>nbroke  Pulpit,  No.  24)  : 

“ The  sands  are  running  out  1 In  a few  short  hours  the  glass  will  be 
empty,  the  time  limit  of  the  British  ultimatum  to  Russia  will  have 
expired,  and  our  diplomatists  will  surrender  their  task  into  the  hands  of 
the  men  of  action.  The  situation  will  not  grow  more  grave,  simply  because 
it  is  impossible  that  it  should  be  graver  than  it  is  at  present.  There  is 
just  the  chance  that  the  Russian  government  will  recognize  its  danger, 
and  will  decide  at  the  last  moment  to  act  in  accordance  with  the  customs 
of  civilized  peoples  ; but  it  is  only  a chance,  and  a poor  one  at  that.” 

“ But  there  is  another  lesson  to  be  taught,  and  we  shall  teach  it,  — a 
lesson  to  be  learned,  which  Russia  shall  learn.  The  old  plan  of  procrasti- 
nation will  not  serve  the  government  of  the  Tsar  on  this  occasion.  We 
have  asked  for  an  immediate  reply  to  our  very  moderate  demands,  and 
if  we  do  not  get  it  we  shall  proceed  to  turn  back  the  Baltic  fleet.” 


TO  THE  JOURNALIST 


231 


“ The  Channel  fleet,  with  steam  up  and  decks  cleared  for  action,  is 
only  waiting  for  the  last  grains  of  sand  to  trickle  through  before  it  sails 
upon  its  mission.  Whatever  the  consequences  may  be,  we  may  rest 
assured  that  that  mission  will  be  accomplished  fully  and  completely.” 

“ The  honor  of  the  British  empire  has  been  besmirched,  and  British 
honor  is  a thing  that  Britons  will  fight  to  uphold.  Russia  must  give 
these  Britons  the  satisfaction  they  demand,  and  which  all  the  world 
upholds  them  in  demanding,  or  she  must  fight  and  be  whipped.  Which- 
ever method  Russia  elects  will  be  quite  satisfactory  to  Britons,  but  the 
decision  must  be  prompt.  There  can  be  no  shuffling,  no  delay,  no  argu- 
ment. Britannia  waits  with  flashing  eye  and  clinched  fist,  determined 
that  the  crime  against  her  people  must  not  go  unpunished.” 

“ What  a chance  for  Lord  Beresford  to  become  a modern  Nelson  1 
Not  by  putting  a telescope  to  his  blind  eye,  but  his  ear  horn  to  his  deaf 
ear,  misunderstanding  orders,  and  converting  the  Baltic  fleet  into  sub- 
marines.” 


“ Are  we  going  to  take  it  lying  down  ? 

“ Such  an  insult  and  vile  degradation  to  our  flag  is  unparalleled  in 
British  history. 

“ Why  should  we  dilly-dally  with  such  villains  ? ” 

21.  New  York  Journal  (see  New  Age , November  10,  1904). 

22.  Julian  Ralph,  Century  Magazine , New  York,  September, 
1901 . 

23.  Mr.  Winston  Churchill,  War  against  War  hi  South  Africa, 
P-  344- 

24.  Indian  Planters'  Gazette  (see  War  against  War  in  South 
Africa , p.  377). 

25.  Globe  (see  New  Age,  February  7,  1901). 

26.  South  Africa,  May  25,  1901. 

27.  Times,  May  18,  1901. 

28.  Pall  Mall  Gazette,  January  15,  1901. 

29.  Ibid. 

30.  Birmingham  Daily  Gazette,  January  8,  1901. 

31.  Standard,  London,  October  16,  1900. 

32.  St.  James'  Gazette. 

33.  South  Africa,  April  20,  1901. 

34.  Morning  Post,  June  27,  1900. 

35.  Dr.  Aked,  Our  Cowardly  War,  p.  9. 


232 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


36.  Christia7i  World,  London,  May,  1902. 

37.  See  War  against  War  in  South  Africa , p.  239. 

38.  Ibid.,  p.  343. 

39.  Bloodthirstiness  of  the  Religious  Press.  See  Refer- 
ences, Chap.  IV,  Note  33. 

40.  See  War  agauist  War  in  South  Africa,  p.  377. 


VII 

THE  MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR  TO 
THE  PREACHER 


And  soon  we  shall  have  thinkers  in  the  place 
Of  fighters. 


What  ye  want  is  light  — indeed 
God’s  light  organised 

In  some  high  soul,  crowned  capable  to  lead 
The  conscious  people,  conscious  and  advised,  — 

For  if  we  lift  a people  like  mere  clay, 

It  falls  the  same.  We  want  thee,  O unfound 
And  sovran  teacher  ! if  thy  beard  be  grey 
Or  black,  we  bid  thee  rise  up  from  the  ground 
And  speak  the  word  God  giveth  thee  to  say, 
Inspiring  into  all  this  people  round, 

Instead  of  passion,  thought,  which  pioneers 
All  generous  passion,  purifies  from  sin, 

And  strikes  the  hour  for.  Rise  up,  teacher!  here’s 
A crowd  to  make  a nation  ! — best  begin 
By  making  each  a man,  till  all  be  peers 
Of  earth’s  true  patriots  and  pure  martyrs  in 
Knowing  and  daring. 


Elizabeth  Barrett  Browning 


VII 


THE  MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR  TO  THE 
PREACHER 

The  belief  that  Christianity  is  incompatible  with 
war,  was  designed  indeed  to  abolish  war,  has  been 
cherished  by  not  a few  Christians,  was  held  by  all  the 
Christians  of  the  first  three  centuries,  by  many  through- 
out all  the  confusions  of  post-Nicene  ecclesiasticism, 
and  has  emerged  into  new  credibility  by  the  ethicizing 
of  modern  religion.  Millions  are  now  prepared  to  make 
it  the  test  of  any  religion  that  is  genuine.  Even  John 
Ruskin,  spite  of  the  lamentable  sanction  wrongfully 
drawn  from  his  Crown  of  Wild  Olive,  declared  that  war 
was  not  permissible  to  Christian  peoples  or  kings  (from 
which  let  those  who  quote  him  draw  what  consolation 
they  can) ; so  that  those  who  interpret  Christianity  as 
the  religion  of  peace,  peace  practicable,  immediate, 
international,  are  not  without  buttresses  on  which  to 
lean.  Christianity  is  the  religion  of  peace.  How  then 
is  Christendom  still  at  war  ? We  naturally  turn  to  the 
professional  teachers  of  religion  for  an  answer. 

The  paid  teachers  of  Christendom  are  numbered  by 
hundredsof  thousands,  — priests,  bishops, ministers,  cate- 
chists, and  so  on,  — while  their  lay  helpers  — deacons, 
churchwardens,  elders,  Sunday-school  teachers,  mis- 
sioners,  lay  preachers  — may  be  counted  by  the  million, 
and  it  is  incomprehensible  that  war  should  continue 

235 


236 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


to  exist  in  Christendom  unless  by  first  demoralizing 
those  formers  of  religious  opinion.  The  fact  also 
that  all  Christian  countries  alike  compete  in  the  equip- 
ments and  spoils  of  war  can  be  understood  only  as 
proof  of  a corrupt  or  undeveloped  conscience.  The 
reason  why  Christendom  is  to-day  in  such  straits,  and 
that  so  many  countries  wallow  in  debt,  waste,  igno- 
rance, covetousness,  poverty,  and  misery  unspeakable, 
is  chiefly  that  the  paid  teachers  of  Christianity,  with 
their  hosts  of  unpaid  assistants,  have  capitulated  to  the 
war  god.  The  chief  defaulters  are  not  the  lay  help- 
ers, who  can  hardly  be  other  than  echoes  of  their 
ecclesiastical  superiors  ; nor  the  general  body  of  wor- 
shipers, who  go  to  be  taught,  not  to  teach ; but 
those  who  are  emancipated  from  all  other  labor  in 
order  that  they  may  have  the  opportunity  of  studying, 
investigating,  proclaiming,  the  principles  of  Christianity, 
yet  permit  themselves  to  be  overcome  of  an  evil  spirit. 
An  American  divine1  pronounces  that  “Jesus  was  not 
a peace-at-any-price  man.  . . . There  is  a text  in  the 
New  Testament  which  seems  to  embody  the  principle 
of  the  gospel  of  Jesus,  ‘First  pure,  then  peaceable.’” 
This  is  simply  shocking,  and  a more  or  less  uncon- 
scious accommodation  to  the  principalities,  powers, 
rulers  of  the  darkness  of  this  world,  spiritual  wicked- 
ness in  high  places  of  the  church.  War  is  never  pure, 
but  is  hell ; and  it  can  never  be  permissible  to  inaugu- 
rate heaven  by  the  help  of  hell.  If  there  be  anywhere 
a sinner,  the  paid  preacher  is  he  ; and  if  he  be  not 
so  much  a sinner  as  a victim  of  the  nefarious  powers 
that  produce  war,  then  the  measure  of  his  fall  is 


TO  THE  PREACHER 


237 


the  measure  of  war’s  iniquity.  Just  as  Milton’s  Satan 
seemed  to  fall  a second  time  when,  after  himself  sin- 
ning, he  persuaded  woman  to  sin,  so  the  demoralizing 
influence  of  the  war  spirit  is  seen  at  its  basest  in  the 
corruption  of  those  who  are  pledged  and  paid  to  preach 
the  doctrines  of  the  Prince  of  Peace.  Such  corruption, 
let  us  cheerfully  note,  never  has  been,  is  not  now,  uni- 
versal, complete.  Here  and  there  a smaller  Elijah 
refuses  to  bow  the  knee  to  the  military  Baal,  a faith- 
ful Micaiah,  though  smitten  on  the  mouth,  continues 
to  bear  his  testimony  to  the  true  significance  of  the 
gospel.  Continuously,  in  this  spot  and  that,  spite  of 
deposition  and  loss  of  livelihood,  the  true  Christianity 
continues  to  be  sounded  forth  in  terms  such  as  these  : 
“ How  do  we  feel  towards  the  plain  duty  of  ‘ Love 
your  enemies  ’ ? Are  these  precepts  of  the  ideal  church 
never  intended,  like  the  Commandments,  or  the  Sermon 
on  the  Mount,  to  be  applied  more  closely  than  is  con- 
venient ? For  centuries  the  church  met  the  hostility  of 
a pagan  and  unscrupulous  world  and  never  flinched. 
Throughout  she  prayed  for  those  who  despitefully 
handled  her : throughout  no  revenge  or  bitterness 
marred  the  security  of  her  soul.  It  was  not  till  later 
on,  when  dross  had  mixed  in,  that  the  church  took 
to  bad  and  aggressive  ways.  . . . With  what  spirit  do 
we  send  forth  our  fighting  men  ? The  drunken  revels 
which  form  the  music-hall  ideals  of  good  fellowship,  the 
excitement  of  the  gin  palace  and  the  London  streets  — 
as  if  the  bottle  was  the  best  prelude  for  the  battle  ; the 
cries  to  the  poor  lads  to  avenge  this  or  that,  the  greedy 
newspapers  spreading  unfounded  slanders  against  our 


238 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


opponents,  the  insistence  by  which  prejudice  and  angry 
ignorance  have  persuaded  us  that  the  enemy  was  but  a 
horde  of  savages,  who  would  run  away  at  once.  The 
whole  temper  of  our  times  is  so  utterly  antichristian 
that  it  appals  me  when  I look  out  upon  it  all,  and  note 
the  intolerance  with  which  men  hate  opinions  opposed 
to  the  momentary  enthusiasm.  We  know  that  these 
noisy  people,  who  let  no  voice  but  theirs  be  heard  on 
platform,  in  pulpit,  in  the  newspaper,  and  who  will 
never  themselves  bear  the  brunt  and  pains  of  it,  are 
far  from  being  the  sane  mind  of  our  [British]  people. 
. . . There  is  no  nobleness  save  that  of  purity  and 
love,  no  gospel  save  that  which  preaches  forgiveness,  no 
joy  like  that  of  joining  hands  in  peace”;2  or  these: 
“ I,  personally,  refuse  to  think  that  the  ‘ red-fool  fury 
of  modern  jingoism’  is  at  all  the  true  mind  of  the 
British  people  at  the  present  time.  It  is  an  over- 
growth, a product  cooked  by  deception  from  ignorance 
and  excitement.  The  ‘Gold  Terror’  is  now  haunting 
the  road  of  human  progress  and  is  wasting  the  life  and 
treasure  of  the  world.  It  aims  at  controlling  the  seats 
of  learning,  ...  it  already  controls  a large  portion  of 
the  press.  ...  It  is  creeping  into  the  churches.  . . . 
Many  prominent  Free  Churchmen  seem  unable  to  resist 
the  pressure  brought  to  bear.”  3 

The  appalling  nature  of  the  preacher’s  defection  is 
seen  by  contrast  with  the  magnificent  opportunity  war 
time  affords  him,  than  which  prophet  or  apostle  never 
had  greater.  The  most  stupendous  episodes  and  the 
most  tragic  incidents  rise  up  to  illustrate  and  enforce  his 


TO  THE  PREACHER 


239 


appeals ; the  laws  of  dramatic  contrast  and  antithesis 
assist  to  blazon  upon  the  mind  of  his  generation  the 
truths  he  had  (presumably)  been  preaching  through  all 
the  years  of  peace,  — against  the  sable  background  of 
hate  to  paint  the  angel  of  love ; over  against  revenge 
to  set  forgiveness ; against  cruelty,  mercy ; against 
murder,  martyrdom ; against  the  sword,  the  cross ; 
against  the  rising  storm  of  savagery  to  speak  the  still- 
ing word  of  peace.  Even  the  vantage  ground  of  the 
persecuted  will  be  afforded  him,  the  unspeakable  priv- 
ilege of  enforcing  his  message  by  suffering  for  it,  like 
the  glorious  confessors  of  old.  He  can  count  on  the 
certainty  of  his  lay  helpers  and  congregation  bitterly 
resenting  his  opposition  to  a popular  war,  his  speaking 
as  Jesus  spoke,  his  insistence  that  the  kernel  of  the 
gospel  is  peace ; and  on  the  possibility  of  their  aban- 
doning his  ministry  or  even  thrusting  him  from  position 
and  livelihood.  He  sees  one  preacher  rebuked  from  the 
judicial  bench  and  the  woolsack,  compelled  to  resign 
his  chaplaincy,  and  another  dismissed  from  office  and 
emolument,  for  venturing  to  withstand  the  debauched 
but  rampant  spirit  of  militarism  ; and,  reading  these 
signs  of  the  times,  the  heart  of  the  faithful  witness 
expands  with  holy  zeal,  for  he  sees  that  the  hour  of 
suffering  is  at  hand  and  that  by  suffering  he  can 
teach  the  most  impressive  lessons  of  his  ministry.  The 
measure  of  his  shrinking  from  the  cross  is  the  measure 
of  demoralization  wrought  in  him  by  that  spirit  which 
prefers  the  sword. 

A trial  of  strength  between  conflicting  nations  is 
also  a trial  of  the  preacher’s  moral  character;  the 


240 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


height  of  noble  opportunity  to  which  it  lifts  him  has 
its  counterpart  in  the  base  opportunism  to  which  he 
may  condescend.  He  may  temporize  like  the  politician, 
saying  that  it  is  “for  all  who  believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  to  so  handle  the  trouble  as  to  commend  them- 
selves to  the  larger  number”  ;4  and  if  his  opportunism 
is  not  greater  than  the  politician’s  in  bulk,  it  is  more 
shocking  from  its  incongruity  with  his  religious  voca- 
tion. He  may  accept  the  carnal  policies  of  the  parlia- 
mentary world  as  limitations  of  his  gospel,  and  hang 
his  head  like  a dumb  dog  when  statesmen,  declaring 
that  it  is  a root  mischief  to  try  to  govern  the  country 
on  Christian  principles,  fling  Christianity  incontinently 
out  of  the  houses  of  legislation.  He  may  soothe  his 
conscience  with  the  lie  that  war  is  a matter  of  politics, 
having  nothing  to  do  with  the  preaching  of  the  gospel, 
and  slide  gently  down  into  the  dastard,  blind  equally 
to  the  humor  and  the  atheism  of  his  position.  Between 
churches  which  cry,  No  politics  in  the  gospel ! and  par- 
liaments which  cry,  No  gospel  in  politics  ! the  Son  of 
Man  is  hard  put  to  it  to  maintain  a footing  in  modern 
affairs.  “ Therefore,  O ye  shepherds,  hear  the  word  of 
the  Lord;  thus  saith  the  Lord  God:  Behold,  I am 
against  the  shepherds.” 

An  outbreak  of  hostilities  reveals  the  fact  that  the 
pulpit,  in  the  main,  has  made  up  its  mind  to  speak 
nothing  that  can  threaten  its  “influence”  or  diminish 
the  number  of  its  contented  adherents.  The  friends  of 
peace  listen  in  vain  for  any  articulate  word  from  the 
ecclesiastical  representatives  of  the  Master  of  Christen- 
dom, who  declare,  rather,  that  it  is  not  their  business 


TO  THE  PREACHER 


241 


“to  investigate  the  causes  of  war,” 5 — which  is  the 
same  thing  as  to  say  that  they  have  nothing  to  do  with 
the  discovery  and  removal  of  the  causes  of  crime,  vice, 
sin ; or  they  truculently  affirm  that  “ it  is  not  a case 
for  arbitration:  it  must  be  a fight  to  a finish.”  6 The 
oracles  of  God  are  silent,  except  when  they  breathe 
forth  threatenings  and  slaughter.  The  Lord  gives  the 
word,  but  there  are  few  to  publish  it.  Few  invocations 
of  the  Prince  of  Peace  are  heard,  but  many  of  the 
God  of  battles, — a worldly-wise  corrective  of  that  much 
overrated  saying,  God  is  Love  ! Joshua  the  killer  is 
substituted  for  Jesus  the  killed,  and  the  Book  of  the 
Wars  of  Jahveh  for  the  Beatitudes  and  Parables  of 
mercy.  By  its  guilty  acquiescence  in  the  spirit  as  well 
as  the  policy  of  war  the  pulpit  invites  the  conclusion 
that  it  has  nothing  to  say  with  regard  to  the  duties  of 
nations  when  the  clash  of  hatred  comes,  and,  inviting 
that  verdict,  invites  either  the  condemnation  of  its 
gospel  as  a weakling  that  cannot  remove  those  passions 
it  condemns,  or  its  own  as  a traitor  that  dare  not  preach 
the  gospel  it  professes. 

In  all  the  unhappy  developments  of  ecclesiasticism 
nothing  is  more  deplorable  than  its  silence  at  times  of 
greatest  national  crisis,  unless  we  except  its  antichris- 
tianism  when  it  does  speak ; and  in  this  reproach  those 
churches  which  are  free  from  connection  with  the  state 
share  equally  with  the  political  churches.  The  con- 
science of  the  “free”  churches,  so  spruce  and  jaunty 
in  certain  spheres,  lies  limp  and  voiceless  before  the 
uplifted  sword,  bribed  by  gold,  paralyzed  by  fear,  or 
shielding  itself  under  such  unhistorical  prevarications 


242 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


as  that  “Nonconformity  was  born  on  the  battlefield.”  7 
The  federated  tribes  of  Israel  slink  to  their  tents,  mur- 
muring some  safe  platitudes  about  peace  and  prayer 
meetings,  whilst  the  world  triumphs,  the  flesh  riots, 
and  the  devil  grins  with  infinite  content.  Those  des- 
ultory voices  which  lift  themselves  in  the  wild  war 
wilderness  are  angrily  suppressed  by  the  ecclesiastical 
powers,  and  its  music  hall  becomes  the  true  church  of 
the  frenzied  nation,  — its  braggart  song  for  hymn,  its 
stimulus  to  hate  for  prayer,  its  measureless  lies  for  the 
scriptures  of  truth.  If  appeals  are  made  to  a great 
body  of  representative  ministers,  they  refer  it  to  a gen- 
eral purposes  committee  — amid  laughter.8  “The  very 
calling  upon  the  bishops  to  assist  in  stopping  the  effu- 
sion of  Christian  Protestant  blood  created  a laugh,  in 
which  they  joined  themselves.” 9 There  will  be  no 
laughter  when  the  thing  comes  up  for  judgment. 

It  were  hard  to  say  which  is  worse, — the  silence  of 
the  pulpit  or  the  timidity  or  wickedness  of  its  speech 
when  it  does  find  a tongue.  The  great  mass  of  preachers 
are  either  dumb  dogs  that  cannot  bark  or  dogs  that 
when  they  do  bark  do  also  bite  and  devour.  The  pulpit 
differs  from  the  political  platform  only  in  its  greater 
unscrupulousness  and  looseness  of  thought  and  the 
sanctity  in  which  it  embalms  a lie.  A dumb  dog  is 
bad,  but  a bloodhound  baying  upon  the  trail  is  worse. 
A watchman  who  does  not  cry  is  a coward,  but  a 
watchman  who  opens  the  gate  to  the  enemy  is  a traitor 
to  boot.  What  is  to  be  said  about  a preacher  who, 
when  the  fearful  issues  between  the  war  spirit  and  the 


TO  THE  PREACHER 


243 


peace  spirit  are  trembling  in  the  balance,  either  cannot 
speak  or  speaks  only  to  blaspheme  his  own  gospel  ? 
Either  he  distrusts  his  gospel,  or  fears  it,  or  is  igno- 
rant of  its  true  nature.  If  he  cannot  speak  and  speak 
Christianly,  he  should  be  forever  silent.  One  is  at  a 
loss  to  say  which  is  the  greater  evil,  — a pulpit  that 
has  lost  its  tongue  or  one  that  has  lost  its  conscience ; 
a pulpit  apathetic  or  a pulpit  apostate.  In  solemn  con- 
ference assembled  a body  of  ecclesiastics  affirm  that 
whilst  they  deplore  its  evils  they  maintain  the  principle 
that  war,  “ in  the  last  resort,  when  the  forces  of  per- 
suasion fail,  is,  under  present  conditions  of  life,  a right- 
eous means  of  redressing  wrongs  or  defending  rights.”  10 
In  the  first  days  disciples  betrayed  the  Son  of  Man 
with  a kiss;  in  these  late  days  they  betray  him  with  a 
— resolution.  Well  might  he,  speaking  to  the  few 
faithful  who  mourn  in  their  militarized  Zion,  exclaim, 
“O,  what  a fall  was  there!  Then  I,  and  you,  and  all  of 
us  fell  down,  whilst  bloody  treason  flourish’d  over  us.” 
Well  do  certain  classes  of  pulpiteers  merit  Coleridge’s 
scathing  epithet  of  “Moloch  priests”: 

Thee  to  defend,  meek  Galilean  ! thee 
And  thy  mild  laws  of  Love  unutterable, 

Thee  to  defend  the  Moloch  priest  prefers 
The  prayer  of  hate,  and  bellows  to  the  herd 
That  Deity,  accomplice  Deity 
In  the  fierce  jealousy  of  wakened  wrath 
Will  go  forth  with  our  armies  and  our  fleets 
To  scatter  the  red  ruin  on  their  foes! 

O blasphemy  ! to  mingle  fiendish  deeds 
With  blessedness!11 


244 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


If  the  purpose  of  these  lines  were  merely  to  indict 
the  modern  pulpit,  it  would  be  served  by  passing  in 
review  the  pulpit’s  shortcomings  from  the  standard  of 
the  gospels  and  pronouncing  its  condemnation  as  an 
unveiled  apostate.  Justice,  however,  which  is  only 
another  name  for  charity,  demands  a wider  survey  and 
a more  discriminating  conclusion.  In  all  sin  two  main 
considerations  must  precede  judgment,  — the  weakness 
of  the  sinner  and  the  strength  of  the  temptation  ; and 
the  object  of  the  present  writer  is  to  demonstrate  the 
demoralizing  power  of  the  war  spirit  by  exhibiting  its 
effect  upon  that  very  institution  which  is,  presumably, 
mightiest  to  resist  its  influence.  Terrible  indeed  must 
be  the  overbearing  and  seductive  influences  flowing 
from  an  agent  that  succeeds  in  corrupting  the  very 
powers  designed  by  Providence  to  resist  it.  If  we 
reflect  how  fearful  and  stupendous  would  be  the  malig- 
nity of  crime  were  it  able  to  corrupt  all  childhood,  of 
unchastity  could  it  debase  all  womanhood,  of  intemper- 
ance could  it  besot  all  abstinence,  of  cruelty  able  to  bru- 
talize all  motherhood,  or  of  avarice  sufficient  to  shrivel 
up  benevolence  itself,  we  shall  be  horrified  to  see  that 
the  war  spirit  is  endowed  with  satanic  power  to  corrupt 
peace  herself,  to  pervert  and  dominate  a church  con- 
secrated to  the  very  ends  of  peace.  No  other  consider- 
ation can  account  for  a pulpit  which,  not  content 
with  tacit  or  open  complicity  in  a particular  war,  is 
driven,  by  a weak  longing  for  consistency,  to  palter 
with  the  very  root  principle  of  peace.  Experience 
proves  that  argument  directed  against  the  stupidity 
and  wickedness  of  resorting  to  arms  for  the  settlement 


TO  THE  PREACHER 


245 


of  differences  between  beings  endowed  with  brains  and 
moral  sense  never  fails  to  win  approval  from  a miscel- 
laneous audience,  but  falls  cold  upon  the  ears  of  eccle- 
siastical assemblies.  It  cannot  be  doubted  that  the 
church,  exerting  herself  in  accordance  with  her  prin- 
ciples, could  make  all  bloodshed  impossible,  and  could 
have  averted  every  war  of  recent  times  ; yet  on  many 
such  occasions  the  multitudes  of  ministers  stir  no  finger, 
preach  no  sermon,  sign  no  petition,  sound  no  note  that 
a government,  willing  enough  to  know  the  temper  of 
the  nation,  can  interpret  as  hostile  to  their  project  ; 
the  result  being  that  statesmen  responsible  for  war  are 
able  to  declare  that  “ the  ministers  of  religion  . . . whose 
profession  inclines  them  to  peace,  to  whatever  denomi- 
nation they  belong  ...  all  their  organizations,  and 
almost  without  exception  all  their  ministers,  are  heart- 
ily on  our  side  ” ; 12  that  the  war  therefore  must  be 
just.  None  knows  better  than  these  statesmen  that  no 
such  conclusion  can  be  drawn  from  the  unanimity  of 
the  pulpit,  which  has  always  indorsed  the  war  of  the 
day ; but  as  an  argument  it  is  good  enough,  and  it 
proves  the  utter  prostration  of  the  agencies  of  peace 
before  the  brute  powers  of  the  world.  With  scarcely 
an  exception  every  successful  war  is  acclaimed  as  a 
“ leading  of  God’s  good  providence,  leaving  a legacy  for 
the  church,  creating  opportunities  for  her  work.”  13  In- 
deed, we  are  always  “justified  in  invoking  the  blessing 
of  the  Most  High  upon  the  British  arms,  to  carry  out 
the  work  intrusted  to  the  Anglo-Saxon  race.”  14  The 
sins  of  the  pulpit  are  more  than  omission — the  paraly- 
sis of  the  peace  enthusiasm  ; they  rise  into  a positive 


246 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


enthusiasm  for  war  — the  commission  of  deeds  which 
violate  in  every  point  the  teachings  of  the  gospels. 

The  appalling  truth  has  to  be  faced,  that  the  church, 
contrary  to  every  expectation  that  might  be  formed 
from  her  principles  and  the  character  of  the  Being  she 
worships,  is  always  and  as  a whole  for  the  war  of  the 
day.  It  is  true  that  when  peace  is  the  popular  cry  the 
preachers  are  also  for  peace.  If  there  is  a peace  crusade 
on  hand  which  excites  the  shallow  enthusiasms  of  the 
fashionables,  the  preachers  also  will  catch  the  excite- 
ments of  the  hour  ; but  when  the  white  banner  yields 
to  the  red,  the  pastors  beat  the  drum  for  the  fighters 
as  furiously  as  they  had  previously  denounced  the 
savagery  of  armed  conflict.  No  other  conclusion  is  pos- 
sible than  that  the  church  follows  rather  than  leads 
public  opinion,  and  is  herself  the  creature  of  public 
excitements  and  passions.  While  not  interfering  to 
prevent  the  strife  of  nations,  she  has  too  often  com- 
mitted the  sword  into  the  hands  of  the  faithful,  and 
blessed  the  banners  of  every  host  that  went  forth  to 
slay.  In  the  days  of  her  political  rule  she  caused  her 
minions  to  shed  blood  like  water ; and  though  the 
scepter  has  passed  from  her  hands,  she  lives  to  speed 
forth  with  benedictions  whatever  host  marches  from  her 
borders  to  violate  every  law  of  humanity  and  religion. 
Organized  Christianity  divests  herself  of  her  robe  of 
righteousness  and  her  garments  of  meek  humility  to 
clothe  herself  in  khaki.  She  gathers  the  way-going 
soldiers  into  her  fold,  preaches  to  them  the  bad-spel  of 
hate  instead  of  the  god-spel  of  love,  presents  them  with 
New  Testaments  bound  in  khaki  — the  Union  Jack  on 


TO  THE  PREACHER 


247 


one  cover  and  the  legend  “ Peace  through  the  blood  of 
Jesus  ” on  the  other  (blasphemous  and  shocking  combi- 
nation of  the  divine  and  the  diabolical),  drops  the  typ- 
ical Christ  dying  for  his  brother,  and  substitutes  the 
original  Cain  killing  his  brother.  As  the  enemy  is 
overrun  by  filibusters  in  khaki,  so  is  Christendom  by  a 
blatant  priesthood  who,  upon  occasion,  can  doff  their 
ecclesiastical  regimentals  to  don  the  semi-military  garb 
of  chaplains  to  their  corps,  march  on  the  Sabbath  day, 
with  strains  of  martial  music,  at  the  head  of  bands  of 
soldiery  to  the  house  of  worship,  and  there,  climbing 
into  the  pulpit,  indulge  in  every  art  that  can  defame 
an  enemy  and  fill  their  hearers  with  murderous  zeal  : 
“You  go  to  fight  men  as  skulking  as  they  are  cunning, 
as  cowardly  as  they  are  ignorant  ” 15  . . . “ a blow  at  the 
tyrant,  the  oppressor,  and  the  murderer”  16 . . . “a  brutal 
and  degraded  race”17.  . . “utterly  devoid  of  truthful- 
ness, honor,  or  honesty”18.  . . “outside  the  pale  of 
civilization”19.  . . “the  dirtiest  and  laziest  people  in 
the  world  ” 20  . . . “ they  have  a lower  conception  of  the 
character  of  God  [than  we].”  21  Whilst  Jesus  called  for 
special  benediction  upon  the  peacemakers,  fashionable 
pulpiteers  masquerading  in  his  name,  amid  the  applause 
of  assembled  worshipers,  denounce  them  as  “ imbeciles 
or  traitors ; imbeciles  if  they  think  [the  war]  can  be 
stopped,  and  traitors  if  they  think  it  ought  to  be 
stopped.”22  A thousand  pulpits  are  manned  by  Bible 
bullies  who  cite  every  obsolete  and  bloody  precedent  of 
the  wars  of  the  Jews,  and  show  themselves  destitute 
equally  of  the  elementary  humanities  and  of  the  facul- 
ties necessary  to  discriminate  between  Judaism  two 


248 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


thousand  years  before  Christ  and  Christianity  two  thou- 
sand years  after  him.  As  Mephistopheles  mingled  with 
the  priests  in  the  holy  service,  and  even  mounted  the 
rostrum  to  preach  the  sermon  for  the  day,  so  the  war 
devil — whether  clad  in  Roman  frock,  Anglican  cassock, 
Genevan  gown,  or  Dissenting  broadcloth  — flings  khaki 
over  all,  and  takes  possession  of  the  pulpit  called  Chris- 
tian, in  order  to  preach  up  every  vile  motive  and  passion 
the  Founder  of  Christianity  came  to  destroy.  One  will 
not  be  wanting  to  declare  that  Christ  himself,  were  he 
on  earth,  would  handle  a Maxim  gun  and  shoot  down  our 
enemies  for  us.  23  “ The  pulpits  are  being  used  every 

Sunday  to  inflame  the  pride  and  passion  of  our  people, 
to  dull  and  sear  their  consciences,”  24  declared  a pecu- 
liarly unimpassioned  observer  of  war’s  madness.  The 
pulpits  voice  the  passion  of  an  hour  rather  than  the  prin- 
ciples of  an  eternal  gospel,  the  patriotism  of  a moment 
rather  than  a righteousness  that  endureth  forever ; and 
they  have  their  reward  in  a temporary  applause  but  a 
permanent  loss  of  power.  This  false  ministry  has  damned 
itself.  It  merits  Joaquin  Miller's  passionate  rebuke 
that  it  has  not  put  up  the  sword  within  its  sheath  : 

, Behold,  this  was  His  last  command  ! 

Yet  ye  dare  cry  to  Christ  in  prayer 
With  red  and  reeking  sword  in  hand. 

Ye  dare  to  do  as  devils  dare  ! 

Ye  liars  — liars  great  and  small  ; 

Ye  cowards,  cowards,  cowards  all  ! 

A conjecture  may  even  be  advanced  whether  the 
churches,  having  almost  extinguished  Christianity  in 
its  relation  to  the  great  world  problems,  have  not  also 


TO  THE  PREACHER 


249 


extinguished  themselves  ; whether  mankind  will  con- 
sider it  worth  while  to  preserve  a lip  religion  that  con- 
tinues to  disgrace  not  itself  only  but  the  very  nature 
of  humanity  ; for  “ if  the  salt  have  lost  his  savor,  where- 
with shall  it  be  salted  ? it  is  thenceforth  good  for 
nothing,  but  to  be  cast  out,  and  to  be  trodden  under 
foot  of  men.”  What  can  mankind  do  with  a church  that 
peels  itself  like  a pugilist  and  reveals  the  murdering 
pagan  instead  of  the  martyred  Christian  ; which  for 
carnal  reasons  cancels  the  Sermon,  contradicts  the 
Beatitudes,  flatly  denies  the  gospel,  repudiates  every 
specific  Christly  ideal,  and  unseats  Jesus  in  order  to 
elevate  Mars  to  the  throne  of  conscience  ? Since  the 
passing  of  the  first  Christians  the  war  spirit  has 
successfully  paganized  the  heart  of  the  church  and  per- 
verted it  to  a great  apostasy.  “ This  pugnacious  pro- 
pensity,” wrote  Richard  Cobden,  25  “ reveals  itself  above 
all  in  the  display  which  public  opinion  tolerates  in  our 
metropolitan  cathedral  . . . whose  walls  are  decorated 
with  bas-reliefs  of  battle  scenes,  of  storming  of  towns, 
and  charges  of  bayonets,  where  horses  and  riders,  ships, 
cannon,  and  musketry  realize  by  turns,  in  a Christian 
temple,  the  fierce  struggle  of  the  siege  and  the  battle- 
field.” At  frequent  intervals  the  cross  with  its  suffer- 
ing victim  recedes  and  out  of  the  blood-red  mist  emerges 
the  foul  idol  of  war  erect  on  his  crimson  chariot ; 
the  wreath  of  thorns,  symbol  of  sovereignty  by  suffer- 
ing, changed  into  the  snaky  hair  which  expresses  at 
once  the  cruelty  and  the  deceitfulness  of  sin.  Asking 
contributions  towards  a war  memorial,  a militant  rector26 
announces  that  it  will  “ take  the  form  of  the  crucified 


250 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


Christ,  surrounded  by  a nimbus  and  the  Union  Jack, 
while  at  the  foot,  in  place  of  the  familiar  figures  of  St. 
John  and  St.  Mary,  will  be  those  of  St.  Stephen  and 
St.  George  — a soldier  and  a bluejacket.”  How  lovely 
are  the  messengers  ! A meeting  is  called  to  inaugurate 
a fund  for  building  a cathedral ; it  is  held  at  the  War 
Office ; many  military  officers  are  present ; an  arch- 
bishop and  a field  marshal  consent  to  become  vice 
presidents ; and  it  is  decided  to  erect  the  cathedral  as 
a memorial  to  fallen  soldiers.27  But  the  other  sects  are 
not  to  be  outgeneraled  by  Anglican  bishops  ; are  in 
truth  a trifle  indignant,  not  at  the  crimes  and  miseries 
of  the  war,  but  at  the  presumption  of  a sect  that  has 
less  seating  accommodation  than  themselves28;  and  the 
game  of  erecting  churches  out  of  the  bones  of  the 
dead  and  the  broken  hearts  of  the  living  goes  merrily 
on.  It  would  appear,  in  fact,  to  be  a favorite  device  of 
the  clergy  to  exploit  a war  in  the  interests  of  new  eccle- 
siastical edifices,  turning  the  sin  and  shame  of  the  war 
spirit  to  business  ends.  In  due  time,  therefore,  comes 
“a  circular  to  all  the  ministers  of  the  Presbyterian 
churches  in  Scotland,  soliciting  their  cooperation  in  the 
collecting  of  a sum  of  money  sufficient  to  build  a church 
. . . in  memory  of  the  Presbyterian  soldiers  who  fell  in 
the  recent  war.  The  circular  is  signed  by  all  the  Moder- 
ators of  Presbyterian  churches  in  Scotland,  England,  and 
Ireland.”  29  Even  the  invalid  soldier  is  taught  to  sing,  in 
words  whose  religion  is  as  discreditable  as  their  poetry  : 
Fear  not,  comrade,  God  is  watching, 

He  is  with  you,  Christian  Briton, 

Hasten  on  supports  and  rear  guards, 

Swords  unsheathed  and  fear  forgotten.30 


TO  THE  PREACHER 


251 


It  is  thus  that  the  Christ  vanishes  with  his  gentle 
visions  of  paradise,  Abraham’s  bosom,  and  the  many 
mansions,  — homes  of  the  penitent,  the  merciful,  the 
meek,  the  persecuted  ; and  in  his  room  comes  the  rude 
and  savage  Odin  with  his  celestial  Valhalla, — heaven 
of  the  brute  heroes  whose  nectar  is  the  blood  of  their 
slaughtered  foes.  How  can  the  world  retain  its  belief 
in  a church  which  is  visibly  distanced  in  faithfulness 
to  gospel  principles  by  the  humanitarians  who  do  not 
venture  to  call  themselves  anything  more  than  atheists, 
agnostics,  positivists,  socialists,  secularists,  and  what 
not  ? How  can  the  churches  preserve  mankind’s  one 
indispensable  sheet  anchor  — faith  in  the  moral  govern- 
ment of  the  universe  — when  they  play  fast  and  loose 
with  their  foundation  principles  ? Can  the  common  man 
do  aught  but  capitulate  to  unfaith,  concluding  that  it  is 
a devil’s  world,  when  he  sees  the  vanguard  of  the  ethical 
army  effect  a cowardly  retreat  from  the  outposts  ? And 
will  he  not  argue  that  man’s  hope  of  salvation  — slight 
as  it  is  — lies  with  such  social,  political,  and  nonchris- 
tian  religious  bodies  as  remain  true  to  the  notions  of 
humanity  and  brotherhood  ? 

The  conclusion  with  which  Tolstoy  sums  up  My  Re- 
ligion is  inevitable  : “ The  church,  formed  of  those 
who  thought  to  bring  about  the  unity  of  mankind  by 
affirming,  with  oaths,  that  truth  was  in  them,  has  long 
been  dead.  But  the  church  composed  of  those  who 
are  united  into  one,  not  by  promises,  not  by  [ecclesi- 
astical] consecration,  but  by  the  works  of  truth  and  of 
good,  that  church  is  alive  and  will  live  forever.  It  is 
composed  now,  as  formerly,  not  of  men  who  cry  ‘Lord, 


252 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


Lord  ! ’ and  work  iniquity,  but  of  men  who  receive 
Christ’s  words  and  obey  them. 

“ The  men  of  this  church  know  that  their  life  is  good, 
if  they  do  not  destroy  the  unity  of  the  Son  of  Man,  and 
that  this  good  can  be  destroyed  only  by  disregarding 
the  commandments  of  Christ.  They,  therefore,  cannot 
but  obey  these  commandments  and  teach  others  to 
obey  them. 

“ Be  these  men  few  or  many  now,  they  are  the  one 
church  which  nothing  can  overcome,  and  the  one  in 
which  all  men  will  be  united. 

“ ‘ Fear  not,  little  flock  ; for  it  is  your  Father’s  good 
pleasure  to  give  you  the  kingdom.’  ” 

In  making  it  possible  to  say  this  the  church  has 
condemned  itself. 

A tradition  still  lingers  in  Christendom  that  its 
pulpit  exists  to  propagate  the  principles  of  goodwill 
and  brotherhood,  to  seek  peace  and  ensue  it,  to  teach 
the  duties  of  patience,  forbearance,  love ; and,  by  in- 
ference, to  strive  against  those  passions  which  are 
destructive  of  a nation’s  moral  character.  But  the 
demoralization  of  the  pulpit  destroys  the  comfortable 
tradition  that  we  have  an  agency  which  stands  between 
us  and  madness,  and  substitutes  the  disturbing  thought 
that  it  merely  brings  the  theological  bias  to  support  the 
political  bias,  adds  the  sanctions  of  religion  to  the  most 
odious  national  crimes,  and  makes  good-god  minister 
to  bad-devil  : for  if  the  light  that  is  in  it  be  dark- 
ness, how  great  is  that  darkness  ! Many  pulpiteers  are 
completely  obsessed  by  the  war  spirit.  Red  tides  of 


TO  THE  PREACHER 


253 


violence  surge  up  into  the  pulpit  also  and  sweep  its 
occupant  away  on  the  mad  foam  of  hatred,  calumny, 
and  lies.31  Even  the  religion  of  the  foe  is  held  up  to 
ridicule ; it  is  suggested  that  he  is  “ the  most  sniveling 
old  hypocrite  on  the  face  of  the  whole  earth”82;  pic- 
tures representing  him  at  worship  are  publicly  hissed ; 
it  is  held  witty  to  associate  him  with  the  more  odious 
characters  of  the  Bible,  and  pious  to  identify  him  with 
the  beast  of  the  Apocalypse  or  the  devil ; by  which 
means  the  pulpit  slanderer  contrives  to  do  more  harm 
to  public  morals  during  a brief  season  of  war,  than  he 
can  undo  during  his  entire  life  tenancy.  Does  the  pul- 
piteer turn  the  white  light  of  Christianity  upon  a war- 
maddened  people  ? or  does  he  require  the  pure  light 
turned  upon  himself  that  he  may  see  how  utter  his 
apostasy  ? Does  he  remind  a vainglorious  and  boastful 
people  that  pride  goeth  before  destruction  ? Does  he 
not  rather  swing  the  censer  of  national  vanity  be- 
fore the  nostrils  of  the  faithful,  to  confirm  and  exalt 
that  pride  which  has  already  brought  on  it  the  con- 
demnation of  heaven  ? Is  it  not  he  who  speaks  great 
swelling  words  about  “ the  greatness  of  [Britain]  as 
the  greatest  missionary  nation,  the  greatest  civilizer 
of  all  nations,  the  truest  exponent  of  political  free- 
dom,” 33  with  a quite  parochial  ignorance  of  the  splendid 
achievements  of  other  nations  in  those  very  directions  ? 
The  debauch  of  blood  that  accompanies  battle,  and 
the  debauch  of  beer  that  follows  victory,  alike  find  him 
silent  or  mildly  apologetic.  Neither  the  martial  orgies 
of  jingoism  nor  the  drunken  orgies  of  snobbery  — 
during  which  more  whisky  is  consumed  than  at  any 


254 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


equal  period  of  national  history  — stir  him  to  any- 
thing more  than  an  excuse  which  is  really  an  approval. 
There  is  no  infamy,  no  cruelty,  which  a Moloch  priest, 
apostate  from  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  will  not  sanc- 
tion or  condone.  His  complacency  is  undisturbed  by 
the  opinion  that  “ the  exigencies  of  the  war  will  always 
require  the  burning  of  farms,  and  even  of  villages.”  34 
With  complete  indifference  to  the  doctrines  of  the 
Nazarene  he  thinks  it  well  that  the  enemy  should  “feel 
that  their  brothers,  sisters,  and  wives  and  children  are 
suffering  from  it  [their  resistance],  and  then  they  may 
be  brought  to  reason,”  35  or,  with  a frightful  lapse  from 
Jesus  to  Jehu,  he  shouts  to  “completely  denude  the 
country  . . . though  bare  fields  and  blackened  home- 
steads frown  all  around,”  for  you  “ cannot  cure  the 
stubborn  foe  until  surgical  and  cauterizing  instruments 
in  the  shape  of  fire  and  sword  scrape  and  burn  him  to 
the  very  bone.”36  He  has  no  rebukes  for  the  spirit  of 
revenge  which  breaks  forth  in  approved  watchwords 
from  the  lips  of  soldiers  steaming  away  for  the  seat  of 
war;  not  even  when  the  watchword  of  revenge  is  shouted 
over  a vastly  outnumbered  foe,  or  over  wounded  boys 
murdered  where  they  lie  by  hate-flushed  soldiers.  If 
the  enemy  will  not  submit  to  the  government’s  pro- 
posals, “there  is  only  one  way  of  peace,  and  that  is  a 
hideous  one,  — suppression.”  37 

The  sanctification  of  revenge  is,  indeed,  the  vilest 
function  performed  by  a war-poisoned  and  blood-stained 
church.  The  command  to  love  our  enemies  is  entirely 
set  aside,  on  the  tacit  understanding  that  forgiveness 
and  empire  do  not  go  well  together,  and  with  a secret 


TO  THE  PREACHER 


255 


feeling  that  it  is  lucky  for  the  empire  that  it  never  tried 
to  do  anything  of  the  sort.  Even  churches  other  than 
national  are  not  able  to  divest  themselves  of  the  idea 
that  they  are  in  part  functionaries  of  the  state,  com- 
mitted to  its  quarrels,  bound  to  stand  by  the  exist- 
ing authorities;  and  they  endeavor  to  atone  for  hate 
of  enemy  by  alleging  a love  of  neighbor  to  be  pro- 
moted by  war  — though  even  this  is  a thin  fallacy 
and  though  Jew  and  pagan  can  do  as  much  without  a 
Christ  and  a cross.  Filled  with  the  irreligious  notion 
that  they  have  to  police  the  military  authorities,  they 
do  their  best  to  prevent  the  pernicious  doctrine  of 
forgiveness  pervading  imperial  politics,  and  pour  the 
vials  of  “ common  sense  ” on  Paul’s  absurd  doctrine 
to  feed  the  hungry  foe  and  give  him  drink  when  thirsty. 
It  would  be  rank  treason,  for  one  thing  ; and  a church 
more  anxious  to  demonstrate  its  loyalty  to  the  throne 
than  to  the  cross  takes  care  to  remove  those  Christian 
prejudices  from  the  minds  of  its  worshipers.  If  for- 
giveness is  a duty,  it  has  its  dangers  also,  as  the 
“esoteric”  meaning  of  the  Nazarene’s  teaching  clearly 
shows  ; for  if  the  king  had  not  forgiven  the  debtor  who 
owed  him  ten  thousand  talents,  that  debtor  would  not 
have  been  able  to  throw  his  fellow-servant  into  prison 
for  a hundred  pence  : it  is  sometimes  well  to  exact  the 
uttermost  farthing  : history  proves  what  evils  follow 
when  a nation  shows  a too  forgiving  spirit ! 38  There- 
fore, “let  us  hope  above  all  that  we  shall  have  done 
with  magnanimity.” 39  The  world  can  be  more  gen- 
erous than  an  apostate  church,  for  it  says  in  its  rough 
and  kindly  way  that  when  a thing  is  over  it  is  best 


256 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


to  “ forgive  and  forget,”  but  “ all  this  talk  about  ‘ affec- 
tionate regard  ’ ” for  a beaten  enemy  is  only  “ fulsome 
and  wholesale  eulogy,”  and  “to  give  them  credit  for 
goodness  and  excellence  where  there  are  such  defects 
and  shortcomings  looks  dangerously  like  a compromising 
of  the  eternal  righteousness  of  God  ” ! 40  Thus  is  revenge 
also  placed  amongst  the  prophets.  Vengeance  becomes 
a beatitude.  The  world  has  said  that  revenge  is  sweet ; 
it  has  been  reserved  for  the  church  to  say  that  it  is 
also  holy.  Now  abideth  faith,  hope,  charity,  revenge,  — 
these  four;  but  th^ greatest  of  these  is  — revenge. 

The  professional  teachers  of  the  church  form  a class 
skilled  in  that  casuistry  by  which  ecclesiasticism  has 
maintained  its  hold  upon  mankind,  and  it  is  not  to  be 
supposed  that  in  their  backsliding  they  are  without 
defense,  — which  is  partly  a defense  of  war.  It  is  pos- 
sible to  tide  over  a period  of  moral  crisis  by  glosses  and 
interpretations  ; and  this  is  how  the  official  ministry 
reason  away  the  ethics  of  Jesus  whenever  they  become 
unpopular.  Ignoring  certain  sayings,  pressing  others 
into  a foreign  service,  and  utterly  traversing  the  main 
lines  of  ethical  religion,  it  is  never  impossible  to  defend 
armed  violence  in  the  abstract  and  every  display  of  it 
in  particular.  A brave  show  of  scripture  and  phi- 
losophy can  be  made  over  such  pleas  as  these  : that 
there  is  a place  within  Christianity  for  force ; that 
Jesus  expected  wars  and  rumors  of  wars  to  the  very 
end,  never  censured  such  soldiers  as  came  his  way, 
employed  the  sword  as  a figure  of  speech  ; that  Peter 
and  Paul  received  soldiers  into  the  church,  made  friends 


TO  THE  PREACHER 


257 


of  them,  reveled  in  military  symbols,  — on  which  flimsy 
pretexts  the  eternal  principles  are  abolished.  Better- 
ing the  alleged  instruction  of  the  apostles,  they  com- 
plain that  there  is  “ still  a lack  of  appreciation  of  the 
great  work  soldiers  have  done  for  the  church  from  the 
very  earliest  ages,”  and  invite  their  hearers  to  “ consider 
the  possibilities  of  what  might  be  done  with  that  great 
throng  of  men  who  compose  the  army  . . . their  great 
power  to  spread  the  grace  of  God  ” ; for  they  have  “ a 
vision  of  the  army  becoming  the  greatest  power  for 
good  in  the  national  life  ...  on  the  side  of  prayer, 
purity,  and  progress.”  41  They  write  books  about  the 
mind  of  the  Master,  but  disown  the  mind  which  took 
him  to  the  cross.  They  ask,  What  would  Jesus  do? 
all  the  time  knowing  he  would  forgive,  not  slay,  his 
enemies  ; die  for,  not  murder,  those  who  martyred  him. 
Not  even  the  suffering  caused  by  war  brings  paid 
officialism  to  bay  ; for,  with  a shuddering  lapse  into 
blasphemy,  it  argues  that  the  Master  was  a man  of 
sorrows  and  acquainted  with  grief,  “ the  noblest  of  vol- 
unteers,”42 and  is  unwilling  to  acknowledge  the  differ- 
ence between  suffering  inflicted  and  suffering  endured ; 
between  murder  and  martyrdom  ; slaughter  and  sacri- 
fice ; violent  attack  and  meek  self-surrender ; death 
involuntary  while  attempting  to  compass  another’s 
death,  and  death  voluntary  as  a means  of  bringing  the 
murderer  to  repentance. 

Nay,  it  is  not  enough  to  defend  organized  slaughter; 
for  what  he  justifies  the  official  teacher  also  sanctifies; 
and  what  he  sanctifies,  that  he  also  glorifies.  Their 
“white-haired  old  chaplain”43  hopes  that  the  troops 


258  v 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


going  away  will  “on  some  quiet  Sundays  join  together 
in  singing  a hymn  he  has  composed  for  them  : 

Lead  us,  lead  us,  God  of  Battles, 

Lead  us  onward  in  the  fray ; 

Rest  above  in  midnight  campings, 

Go  before  in  marching  day.” 

To  the  returning  troops  another  declares  that  a country 
cannot  attain  to  full  and  true  life  till  it  has  been  con- 
secrated through  blood.  A baptism  of  blood  is  neces- 
sary to  full  nobility,  — not  merely  a sprinkling  on  the 
vicarious  heads  of  troops  on  the  field,  but  a bath  of  the 
entire  people.44  Would  it  avail  to  ask  those  meek  fol- 
lowers of  the  Lamb  of  God  who  pant  to  see  their  coun- 
tries drenched  in  blood,  those  pure  exponents  of  the 
vicarious  cross,  why  and  for  what  ends  they  continue 
to  preach  a gospel  of  whose  sense  they  have  not  even 
a glimmer  ? or  what  would  be  the  use  of  a gospel  that 
was  such  as  they  would  make  it  appear  ? whether 
Jesus  did  not  voluntarily  shed  his  blood,  precisely  in 
order  that  there  might  be  no  more  violent  shedding  of 
blood  ? whether  he  did  not  live  and  die  to  make  men 
noble  ? And  if  men  cannot  be  made  noble  without 
blood,  what  is  the  use  of  the  gospel  ? Or  if  they  can 
be  made  noble  by  the  gospel,  what  is  the  use  of  war  ? 
A line  from  Byron  45  shall  give  us  the  pious  gloss  at  its 
highest,  and  at  the  same  time  expose  its  wickedness,  — 
a wickedness  of  which  (it  is  pleasant  to  believe,  on 
the  evidence  of  later  editions  of  his  work)  Words- 
worth repented  before  he  died  :46 

Carnage  (so  Wordsworth  tells  you)  is  God’s  daughter; 

If  he  speak  truth,  she  is  Christ’s  sister. 


TO  THE  PREACHER 


259 


The  truth  is  that  the  double-mindedness  of  its  pro- 
fessional caste  is  working  fearful  havoc  with  the  con- 
science of  the  church.  The  fathers  who  transferred  to 
the  church  the  books  of  the  Jewish  Bible  en  bloc  con- 
ferred a doubtful  blessing  upon  it ; for  the  preachers 
have  ever  since  hovered  between  Moses  and  Christ, 
uncertain  which  to  prefer,  or  rather  preferring  the  one 
or  the  other  according  to  the  necessities  of  the  moment. 
When  war  is  epidemic  they  preach  Moses;  when  peace 
is  fashionable,  Jesus  ; or  they  indistinguishably  blend 
Jesus  the  son  of  David  with  Joshua  the  son  of  Nun.  For 
even  the  fighting  man  “may  ask  doubtingly,  ‘Is  he 
with  me  when  I go  out  to  fight  and  to  kill  ? ’ ” but  the 
glozing  priest  is  by  to  salve  his  conscience  : “ I would 
have  you  be  sure  to-day,  I would  have  you  throughout 
this  war,  terrible  as  it  is,  be  sure  of  this,  that  Christ  is 
with  you,  for  he  is  the  Prince,  not  only  of  Peace  but 
of  War.  Christ  is  the  Prince  of  War,  leading  the  armies 
of  heaven  against  the  forces  of  evil.”  47  A double-minded 
preacher  is  unstable  in  all  his  ways.  Blending  the  fero- 
cious laws  and  precepts  of  the  Old  Testament  with  the 
pure  humanities  of  Jesus,  they  become  vain  in  their 
imaginations  and  their  foolish  hearts  are  darkened. 
Professing  themselves  to  be  wise  they  become  fools. 
They  deliver  themselves  of  sentiments  of  which  these 
are  typical : that  “ war  is  not  always  wrong,  . . . the 
Bible  is  full  of  it  : there  are  eighty-two  pitched  battles 
described  in  the  Old  Testament,  sixty-four  of  which 
were  fought  under  the  direct  instruction  of  the  Al- 
mighty; the  New  Testament,  in  many  instances,  ap- 
proves of  these  Old  Testament  battles.”48  In  childlike 


26o 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


ignorance  alike  of  modern  conscience  and  modern  criti- 
cism another  asks,  “ If  war  is  wrong,  why  does  the 
Bible  so  often  order  war  ? ” 49  The  type  is  rounded  to 
completeness  by  the  sentiment  that  Great  Britain  [or 
America]  is  a trustee  for  God  and  his  gospel,  and  that 
the  trust  estate  can  be  properly  maintained  only  by  the 
ultimate  success  of  the  British  [or  American]  arms.  If 
they  “died  for  Harrow  and  died  for  [Britain]  they  died 
for  Christ.”  50  ...  “ [Britain]  is  as  true  to  her  flag  as 
ever.  You  know  what  is  emblazoned  upon  her  flag.  It 
is  the  cross  of  Christ,  and  she  is  true  to  its  teaching.”  51 
It  is  thus  that  masses  of  men  are  kept  from  seeing  the 
degenerate  nature  of  the  thing  that  is  taught  them  for 
Christianity.  Their  pastors  lead  them  into  the  blood-red 
fields  of  Jahveh  when  the  politician  gives  the  word,  and 
into  the  green  pastures  of  the  Nazarene  only  when  there 
is  no  scheme  of  national  murder  and  robbery  afoot. 

It  would  be  a mistake,  however,  to  suppose  that 
because  the  church  abandons  the  ethics  of  Jesus,  she 
surrenders  entirely  her  traditional  functions  of  doctrine, 
praise,  and  prayer.  The  indispensable  dogmas  are  re- 
tained, the  theology  to  fit  the  ethic.  She  still  proclaims 
the  trinity  of  persons;  but  through  the  glare  of  blood 
all  distorted  into  the  images  of  St.  Ahab  the  capitalist, 
who  covets  the  vineyard,  St.  Jezebel  the  politician, 
who  plans  murder  by  robbery,  St.  Cain  the  com- 
mander in  chief,  who  performs  the  bloody  business. 
And  does  not  the  church  praise  her  martial  trinity 
with  blaring  Te  Deums  whenever  with  a hundred  thou- 
sand men  her  country  defeats  five  thousand  of  the 
enemy  ? And  when  it  is  the  other  way  — whenever 


TO  THE  PREACHER 


261 


with  five  thousand  the  foe  defeats  her  hundred  thou- 
sand— she  changes  her  note  to  Miserere  and  appoints 
days  of  humiliation,  which  are  so  obviously  ordained 
to  pray  for  the  humiliation  of  the  enemy  that  it  is 
found  impossible  to  proceed  with  them.  Sometimes  the 
prelates  command  a day  of  prayer ; but  they  carefully 
abstain  from  informing  their  perplexed  flocks  for  what 
they  are  to  pray.  Preying  abroad  may  be  successful ; 
but  praying  at  home  is  not  necessarily  sincere.  If  the 
prayer  is  to  get  itself  prayed  at  all,  it  will  assuredly 
prove  to  be  prayer  without  the  spirit  and  without  the 
understanding  also.  It  avails  nothing  to  exclaim  with 
the  ancient  Pharisee,  “Thank  God  that  our  hands  have 
not  been  stained  with  the  blood  of  unrighteousness!” 
or  to  flatter  self  that  “ we  are  going  forth  as  a great, 
free,  religious  people  to  fulfill  our  awful  destiny  ” ; for 
that  “there  is  a future  of  imperial  sway  amongst  the 
peoples  of  the  earth  that  may  well-nigh  appall  us.”  52 
For  the  prophet  outvoices  the  Pharisee  as  he  exclaims, 
“ When  .ye  spread  forth  your  hands,  I will  hide  mine 
eyes  from  you;  yea,  when  ye  make  many  prayers,  I 
will  not  hear:  your  hands  are  full  of  blood.” 

The  conclusion  is  indisputable,  axiomatic,  admitting 
no  further  discussion,  — the  churches  as  they  are  to- 
day cannot  prevent  war.  Their  palsied  lips  cannot 
echo,  however  feebly,  the  words  of  the  Master,  “Put 
up  again  thy  sword  into  his  place”!  There  is  not 
spiritual  power  left  in  organized  Christianity  to  insure 
the  substitution  of  reason  for  brute  force,  international 
ethics  for  the  law  of  the  strongest,  or  the  gospels  for 
the  book  of  Joshua.  War  has  paralyzed  the  church. 


262 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


Is  this  the  damnation  of  the  church  ? Say  rather  the 
damnation  of  war  ! 

If  there  is  a sight  more  shameful  than  that  of  the 
paid  disciples  of  the  Prince  of  Peace  blaspheming  him 
into  a “ Prince  of  War,”  it  is  the  sight  of  them  tamper- 
ing with  his  gospel  in  order  to  justify  themselves. 
Confronted  with  the  horrible  discrepancy,  their  Moder- 
ators and  bishops,  in  the  spirit  of  the  high  priest 
Caiaphas,  begin  to  talk  in  a disparaging  way  about 
“transcendental  views  of  the  gospel”  — meaning,  it 
is  to  be  presumed,  the  taking  Jesus  at  his  word  and 
endeavoring  to  live  accordingly  — and  proclaim  a gos- 
pel of  “common  sense”  as  a set-off  to  the  unimperial 
gospel  of  mercy,  charity,  dying  for  one’s  enemies,  and 
so  on.  By  this  new  ecclesiastical  substitute  for  the  old 
Galilean  evangel  the  church  hopes  to  conciliate  a world 
grown  hard,  practical,  wealth-gathering,  empire-build- 
ing. It  would  be  interesting  to  know  the  secret  thought 
of  Jesus  that  lies  deep-buried  in  the  subconsciousness  of 
the  latter-day  Caiaphas  ; and  it  would  be  profitable  for 
him  to  be  forced  back  upon  his  own  hidden  dissatisfac- 
tion with  this  Jesus  who  went  up  and  down  talking  in 
an  absurd,  transcendental  way  about  love  and  brother- 
hood, and  who  appeared  to  think  a gospel  of  common 
sense  not  worth  dying  for.  But  Caiaphas  evades  the 
inquisition  of  his  own  soul  by  professing  his  entire  readi- 
ness to  obey  the  letter  of  Christ’s  law  “ when  the  Millen- 
nium comes,”  — not  seeing  that  the  one  condition  and 
indispensable  antecedent  of  the  Millennium  is  this  very 
practicing,  here  and  now,  of  the  principles  of  Jesus. 


TO  THE  PREACHER  263 

To  relegate  to  a millennial  future  the  principles  which 
he  and  multitudes  of  his  followers  successfully  prac- 
ticed two  thousand  years  ago  is  very  stupid  as  talk, 
and  very  wicked  as  conduct.  It  is  merely  a trick  to 
evade  the  cross.  Unhappy  Caiaphas  ! What  a foul 
insult  they  offer  who  exploit  Christ’s  name  for  all  it  is 
worth  to  them  as  churchmen,  but  disown  his  principles 
as  soon  as  they  conflict  with  their  interests  as  citizens, 
— falling  into  the  same  condemnation  as  those  early 
impostors  who,  having  a form  of  godliness,  denied  the 
power  thereof!  How  faithless  to  call  him  “Lord”  yet 
not  do  the  things  he  says,  to  put  duty  to  him  as  Chris- 
tians into  one  water-tight  compartment  of  life,  and 
duty  to  the  world  as  citizens  into  another,  — coming 
under  the  rebuke  of  those  ancient  formalists  who  drew 
nigh  unto  him  with  their  mouth,  and  honored  him  with 
their  lips;  but  their  hearts  were  far  from  him! 

The  question  at  last  emerges,  Why  should  Chris- 
tianity be  taught  at  all,  if  it  is  unfit  to  be  taught  fully  ? 
Why  should  any  profess  the  ideas  of  Jesus,  if  it  is  not 
possible  to  carry  them  right  through  life  and  politics  ? 
To  brand  them  as  right  but  impossible  is  to  brand  him 
as  a utopian  of  the  worst  kind.  Are  the  teachings  im- 
practicable ? or  practicable  ? If  the  former,  why  do  we 
call  him  a great  teacher  ? If  the  latter,  why  do  we  refuse 
to  obey  them?  If  he  taught  what  cannot  be  lived,  what 
becomes  of  him  ? Or  if  we  decline  to  live  according 
to  what  he  taught,  what  becomes  of  us  ? Let  the 
war  church  make  its  choice. 

In  opposition  to  the  “ gospel  of  common  sense  ” so 
conveniently  preached  by  Caiaphas  it  could  be  argued 


264 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


that  the  teachings  of  Jesus  are  entirely  practicable,  and 
that  all  our  miseries  come  from  disregarding  them. 
Nothing  is  so  potent  as  a true  ideal  ; and  no  ideal  is 
so  true  as  the  spirit  and  method  of  Jesus.  The  style 
is  indeed  oriental  in  its  figurativeness;  but  the  mean- 
ing strict  as  the  science  of  the  occidental  mind  could 
make  it.  The  message  is  not  for  some  far-off  future, 
but  for  the  here  and  now.  The  world  may  be  a Gallio 
who  does  not  care  ; but  the  church  is  a Felix  who  does 
not  desire.  Postponing  obedience  to  some  more  con- 
venient season,  passing  the  message  down  from  genera- 
tion to  generation  on  the  plea  that  the  time  is  not  ripe, 
the  church  brands  herself  as  a mere  timeserver,  an 
opportunist  of  the  meaner  sort,  — a Felix  in  excelsis. 
When  can  a time  more  appropriate  arrive  than  this  clash- 
ing and  bloody  present  ? When  is  mercy  more  practi- 
cable than  when  cruelty  abounds  ? or  sobriety,  than  in 
the  midst  of  drunkenness  ? or  virtue,  than  when  sur- 
rounded by  vice  ? or  peace,  than  when  torn  by  strife  ? 
The  way  of  obedience  has  to  be  prepared  by  the  obedient. 

But  alas  ! it  has  hitherto  been  impossible  to  get 
Christendom  to  obey  its  Christ.  It  will  build  churches 
to  him,  send  out  missionaries  for  him,  print  tracts  and 
Bibles  for  him,  preach  sermons  about  him,  embalm  him 
in  dogmas  and  enshrine  him  in  creeds,  — yea,  persecute83 
those  who  insist  on  keeping  his  commandments  ; but 
it  will  not  obey  him.  It  insists  that  he  shall  be  called 
God,  yet  will  not  obey  him  as  even  a wise  man.  It 
proclaims,  but  will  not  carry,  the  cross ; will  not  be 
crucified  with  its  Christ.  It  literally  beats  the  plow- 
shares into  swords  and  the  pruning  hooks  into  spears, 


TO  THE  PREACHER 


265 


— ruining  agriculture  and  industry  for  the  sake  of 
arms ; it  degrades  Christianity  into  the  creature  of  the 
war  god,  — fashioning,  as  it  were,  the  wood  of  the  cross 
into  rifles  for  its  armies,  and  the  nails  of  the  cross  into 
ironclads  for  its  navies ; but  it  will  not  obey,  it  will 
not  suffer. 

The  problem  is,  How  to  make  Christendom  a doer, 
as  well  as  a hearer,  of  the  word  of  peace,  — how  to 
bring  the  ideal  law  of  love  down  into  the  life  of  to-day, 
how  to  weave  the  Sermon  into  modern  society,  how 
to  make  the  Beatitudes  the  driving  force  of  politics, 
how  to  make  the  Christ  ruler  in  his  own  house,  how  to 
cast  out  the  legion  devils  that  haunt  the  tombs  of  the 
world’s  battlefields,  how  to  substitute  the  cross  for  the 
sword.  If  the  church  can  solve  this  problem,  she  will 
live.  If  she  cannot,  she  will  die ; and  die  unlamented. 
If  the  church  cannot  destroy  war,  war  has  already 
destroyed  the  church.  And  that  enormous  deed  is  the 
measure  of  the  guilt,  stupidity,  and  madness  of  the 
war  spirit. 


REFERENCES 

1.  Rev.  Minot  J.  Savage,  D.D.,  The  Jewish  Criterion , Pitts- 
burg, April  21,  1905. 

2.  Dean  Kitchin,  Durham  Cathedral,  January  21,  1900.  For 
preaching  this  sermon  the  dean  was  compelled  to  resign  his 
chaplaincy  to  the  city  corporation,  and  was  publicly  rebuked  from 
the  bench  by  Justice  Grantham,  whose  offense  was  condoned  by  the 
Lord  Chancellor.  See  War  against  War  in  South  Africa , p.  247  ; 
New  Age , February  8,  1900. 

3.  Rev.  George  Critchley,  for  twenty-five  years  minister  of 
Burnt  Ash  Congregational  Church,  Lee.  After  these  utterances 
he  was  compelled  to  resign  his  living. 


266 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


4.  Rev.  J.  Morgan  Gibbon  (see  War  against  War  in  South 
Africa , p.  347). 

5.  Archdeacon  of  London,  St.  Paul’s  Cathedral,  November  5, 
1899. 

6.  Dr.  Joseph  Parker,  Sun,  London,  December  5,  1900. 

7.  Rev.  W.  J.  Dawson,  New  Age , February  22,  1900. 

8.  Congregational  Union  Committee,  ibid..  May  10,  1900. 

9.  Duke  of  Richmond,  ibid..  May  28,  1903. 

10.  Archidiaconal  Conference,  Shrewsbury,  April,  1900. 

ir.  “Religious  Musings.” 

12.  Joseph  Chamberlain,  May  n,  1900. 

13.  Archbishop  of  Capetown,  New  Age,  May  30,  1901. 

14.  Dean  Spence,  ibid.,  April  30,  1903. 

15.  Rev.  Paul  Wyatt,  ibid.,  December  26,  1901. 

16.  Canon  Newbolt,  ibid.,  December  18,  1902. 

17.  Bishop  of  Pretoria,  ibid.,  May  28,  1903. 

18.  Rev.  J.  G.  Holt,  ibid. 

19.  Rev.  Hugh  Price  Hughes,  ibid. 

20.  Canon  Farmer,  ibid. 

21.  Archbishop  of  Armagh,  ibid. 

22.  Rev.  W.  J.  Dawson,  War  against  War  in  South  Africa, 
p.  284. 

23.  Herald  of  Peace,  June  1,  1903. 

24.  Sir  Edward  Clarke,  New  Age,  May  28!  1903. 

25.  Political  Writings,  Vol.  II,  p.  377  (edition  of  1903). 

26.  Rev.  E.  J.  Houghton,  New  Age,  July  12,  1900. 

27.  Reuter,  May  19,  1901. 

28.  ATew  Age,  August  15,  1901. 

29.  Daily  News. 

30.  Report  of  Soldiers’  Home,  Herald  of  Peace,  June  1,  1903. 

31.  Pulpit  Calumnies  : 

Rev.  Arthur  Robins,  in  Daily  Telegraph,  July,  1899. 

If  Great  Britain  is  not  ready  to  draw  the  sword,  and  give  the  signal 
to  her  marksmen  to  sight  their  rifles  for  j ustice,  liberty,  and  freedom,  only 
because  the  crotchety  conscience  of  some  Little  Englander  who  would 
dwarf  our  dominions  everywhere  calls  a halt,  then  the  half-breeds  will  get 
first  blood,  and  their  hangmen  will  find  halters  for  every  tree.  Truly  the 
braggarts  of  Dutch  courage  are  not  the  mere  swashbucklers  of  Dutch 
drops.  Oom  Paul,  because  he  is  on  his  knees,  is  not  therefore  always  at 


TO  THE  PREACHER 


267 


his  prayers.  His  kingdom,  he  assures  us,  is  not  of  this  world,  but  if  his 
clowns  ever  set  on  him  a crown  at  his  court,  there  will  be  no  Chamber- 
lain.  He  bleats  amongst  his  sheepfolds  about  the  Bible,  as  Beelzebub 
fires  off  the  canonical  Scriptures.  He  labors  for  peace,  he  maunders 
with  up-turned  eyes  in  the  midst  of  the  down-trodden,  “ but  when  I speak 
to  them  thereof,”  he  whines,  “ they  make  them  ready  for  battle.”  With  us, 
if  we  are  to  dig  up  the  prestige  that  was  once  lost  — lost  in  those  sands 
— there  must  be  no  half  measures,  for  he  will  give  no  quarter.  We  must 
strike  for  life  and  honor  such  a blow  as  shall  make  all  Boerdom  reel. 
Oom  Paul  will  swim  through  seas  of  blood  upon  his  belly,  psalm-singing 
with  every  stomach  stroke,  and  not  the  least  bit  off  color  all  the  while. 
Whilst  we  are  politically  procrastinating,  he  is  prayerfully  preparing,  and 
whilst  some  of  our  Radicals  are  calling  on  the  hucksters  of  the  party  to 
curse  our  cause  and  bless  our  enemies,  he  is  in  pious  prostration  before 
the  Lord  of  Hosts.  Meanwhile,  his  myrmidons  can  all  do  murder  at  a 
pinch,  and  to  ravish  they  are  not  ashamed.  But  he  is  verily  and  indeed 
a dreamer  of  dreams,  if  he  believes  that  the  voices  of  the  cravens  who 
shout  surrender  are  as  the  voice  of  Mr.  Gladstone  coming  up  from  the 
shades.  Great  Britain,  unless  she  has  a bit  of  the  fin  de  silcle  funk  that 
is  bred  of  the  Little  Englander,  must  fight  with  the  focused  forces  of  one 
fixed  front,  with  the  outstretched  arms  of  her  sons  — hands  across  the 
sea  with  the  weapons  of  war  in  their  grasp  from  the  land  of  her  midday 
strength,  and  the  land  of  the  midnight  sun. 

32.  Dr.  Joseph  Parker,  New  Age , June  19,  1902. 

33.  Rev.  A.  D.  Pringle,  Newcastle  Daily  Chronicle , April  17, 
1885. 

34.  Bishop  Chavasse,  letter  to  Swiss  Evangelical  Alliance. 

35.  Army  chaplain,  Scotsman , Edinburgh,  February  28,  1901. 

36.  Chaplain  James  Robertson,  D.D.,  Alma  Mater,  Aberdeen, 
May,  1903. 

37.  Bishop  Thornton,  New  Age,  May  28,  1903. 

Pulpit  Thuggery  : 

A Scottish  rector  to  W.  T.  Stead,  November,  1900. 

You  Disloyal  Briton  and  Wicked  “ Pro-Boer  ” : Some  centuries  ago  a 
vile  people  existed,  known  to  the  then  world  as  Amalekites ! Do  you 
remember  anything  you  ever  read  about  them?  Well,  an  order  went 
forth  that  they  were  to  be  annihilated  — exterminated!  And  trouble 
ensued  because  they  were  not  clean  swept  off  the  face  of  the  earth, 
which  was  contaminated  by  contact  with  them.  Now,  my  opinion  is 
that  the  foul  creation  you  call  your  “ Brother  Boer"  is  as  vile  a thing 


268 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


as  any  Amalekite  who  ever  lived,  if  not  viler , and  that  he  ought  to  be 
exterminated  forthwith. 

The  dirty  thief  Kruger  — he  is  a most  dirty  animal,  is  he  not?  — and 
a common  thief,  now  running  off  with  money  burgled  from  his  dirty 
and  lying  brother  Boers  who  trusted  in  him?  — I say,  the  unclean  thief 
and  burglar  Kruger  ought  first  to  suffer  the  fate  of  A gag,  and  then  all 
the  other  Boer  reptilia  ought  to  be  made  suffer  a fate  as  like  it  as 
possible. 

Your  effusions  brand  you  as  a traitor  to  your  country,  and  while  they 
ought  to  be  burnt,  you  ought  to  be  shot-ox  imprisoned  for  life. 

F.S.  — You  may  print  this  letter  if  you  like;  but,  as  the  beast-Boer 
is  capable  of  assassinating  those  who  will  not  permit  him  to  play  the 
demon  with  impunity,  and  those,  too,  who  describe  him  as  accurately  as 
I do,  I must  ask  you  to  suppress  my  name. 

38.  Archdeacon  Wilberforce,  Daily  Mail , November  5,  1904. 

39.  Dr.  Stewart,  of  Lovedale  ; quoted  by  Rev.  James  Barr, 
February  24,  1901. 

40.  Rev.  Gavin  Long,  New  Age , June  26,  1902. 

41.  Chaplain-General  Bishop  Taylor  Smith,  April  7,  1905. 

42.  Rev.  R.  R.  Mangin,  Newcastle  Leader,  February  16,  1900. 

43.  Chaplain,  the  Bishop  of  Marlborough,  New  Age , Febru- 
ary  15,  1900. 

44.  Rev.  Armstrong  Black,  Toronto  Weekly  Globe , Febru- 
ary 6,  1902 : 

Soldiers  of  Canada,  there  will  come  sooner  or  later  a day  of  trouble 
in  the  history  of  this  land.  Unless  history  of  every  kind  is  to  be  falsi- 
fied by  the  record  of  this  land,  we  cannot  attain  to  true  and  full  life 
until  we  shall  have  passed  through  some  great  crisis  — until,  I say,  we 
shall  have  experience  of  war  in  the  life  of  this  fair  land.  History  tells 
us  we  must  prepare  for  this.  Before  we  come  into  the  full  and  true  and 
noble  work  of  life  we  must  be  consecrated  to  that  work  in  blood,  I 
know  not  whence  it  may  come,  and  I dare  not  desire  the  day  to  come. 
But  come  it  will,  and  it  may  come  soon.  When  that  day  comes,  Canada 
will  have  full  measure  of  that  baptism  of  blood,  some  of  the  drops  of 
which  have  but  been  sprinkled  on  some  of  your  gallant  and  noble  heads. 

45.  Don  ftian , Canto  8,  IX. 

46.  The  line  is  omitted  from  edition  of  1845.  See  “Thanks- 
giving Ode,”  second  “ Ode,”  IV  (Knight’s  edition). 

47.  Rev.  R.  R.  Mangin,  Newcastle  Leader , February  16,  1900. 

48.  Reader  Harris,  Q.C.,  Reynolds'  Newspaper. 


TO  THE  PREACHER 


269 


49.  Canon  Knox  Little,  New  Age , May  28,  1903. 

50.  Bishop  of  London,  at  Harrow,  on  Founder’s  Day,  1904. 

51.  Rev.  R.  R.  Mangin,  Newcastle  Leader,  February  16,  1900. 

52.  Dr.  Donald  MacLeod,  New  Age,  June  26,  1902. 

53.  The  Church  Persecuting  those  who  obey  its  Christ 
(New  Age,  March  21,  1901)  : 

The  Rev.  R.  J.  Campbell,  having  been  out  to  South  Africa,  thought 
well  to  give  a lecture  on  his  experiences.  A correspondent  thus  describes 
what  happened: 

“ A large  sheet  was  fitted  up  in  front  of  the  pulpit,  and  various  lime- 
light pictures  were  thrown  upon  it  from  time  to  time  as  the  lecture  pro- 
ceeded. Photos  of  armored  trains,  4-7  guns,  lyddite  shells,  and  other 
engines  of  destruction  met  with  a good  deal  of  applause;  but  when  the 
photo  of  our  hero  god,  Lord  Roberts,  was  shown,  the  applause  was 
almost  frantic.  As  it  died  away,  some  one  asked,  ‘May  we  now  see  a 
picture  of  Christ,  as  I consider  that  would  be  only  proper  in  this  House 
of  Prayer  ? ’ Instantly  there  was  a storm  of  hissing,  and  shouts  of  1 Pro- 
Boer,’  ‘Turn  him  out,’  etc.,  were  raised.  Out  of  their  own  mouths  were 
the  war  party  condemned,  for  in  calling  this  questioner  ‘ Pro-Boer  ’they 
were  admitting  that  they  themselves  wished  to  leave  Christ  out  of  the 
question.  At  the  close  of  the  lecture  a gentleman  challenged  the  lec- 
turer to  find  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  any  justification  for  so  mis- 
using a building  dedicated  to  the  worship  of  the  Prince  of  Peace  by 
showing  these  pictures  of  scenes  and  means  of  murder.  ‘Christ,’  he 
remarked,  ‘said,  “Love  your  enemies,”  but  the  church  was  teaching, 
“ Blow  them  to  pieces  with  lyddite  and  worship  in  our  churches  the  men 
who  do  it.”  You  are  false  to  the  Christ  you  profess  to  worship  and 
obey.’  Amid  scenes  of  uproar  and  confusion,  the  speaker  was  roughly 
hustled  from  the  church.” 


VIII 


THE  MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR  TO 
THE  MISSIONARY 


Not  long  ago  I read  the  fifth  chapter  of  Matthew  with  a Hebrew 
Rabbi.  At  nearly  every  sentence  the  Rabbi  exclaimed : “ That  is  in  the 
Bible  ; that  is  in  the  Talmud  ” ; and  both  in  the  Bible  and  the  Talmud 
he  showed  me  passages  very  similar  to  the  words  of  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount.  But,  when  we  came  to  the  verse  about  non-resistance  to  evil, 
he  did  not  say,  “ And  that  is  in  the  Talmud,”  but  only  asked  me  with  a 
smile,  “And  do  Christians  fulfill  that?  Do  they  turn  the  other  cheek  ?” 
I had  nothing  to  reply,  for  well  I knew  that  at  that  very  time  Chris- 
tians not  only  were  not  turning  the  other  cheek,  but  were  smiting  the 
cheeks  of  Hebrews  turned  to  them.  I was  curious,  however,  to  know 
whether  any  similar  expression  was  to  be  found  either  in  the  Bible,  or 
the  Talmud,  and  I put  the  question  to  him.  He  answered,  “No,  there 
is  not  ; but  tell  me  whether  Christians  fulfill  that  law  or  not.”  By  this 
question  he  affirmed,  that  the  existence  of  a rule  in  the  Christian  law, 
which  is  not  only  neglected  by  them,  but  acknowledged  to  be  incapable 
of  fulfillment,  is  a confession  of  its  senselessness  and  uselessness.  And 
I had  no  answer  for  him. — Tolstoy. 


VIII 


THE  MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR  TO  THE 
MISSIONARY 

The  headship  of  Christ  is  one  of  the  church’s  most 
valued  traditions  ; and  none  has  run  a stranger  career. 
Beginning  as  a prodigious  but  undogmatic  reality  in 
the  apostolic  age,  it  was  first  eclipsed  by  the  shadow  of 
Caesarism,  then  vulgarized  by  the  Papal  Empire,  next 
reasserted  with  pristine  vigor  by  the  Reformation,  only 
to  be  presently  sunk  again  in  State-churchism ; and 
to-day,  even  in  the  act  of  feebly  stirring  itself  beneath 
the  trammels  of  Establishment,  or  pedantically  airing 
itself  from  the  platforms  of  Voluntaryism,  is  entering 
into  fresh  engagements  with  politics  and  making  new 
capitulations  to  empire.  Not  only  does  the  church  in 
all  her  sections  decline  to  be  under  law  only  to  Christ, 
but  meekly  bows  to  Caesar  when  he  commands  her  to 
bless  his  warlike  banners  or  sing  Te  Deums  for  vic- 
tories publicly  proclaimed  as  acts  of  revenge.  The 
church  which  refused  to  be  bullied  consents  to  be 
bribed,  and  is  busy  everywhere  softening  her  asser- 
tions, modifying  her  ethics,  trimming  her  sails  to  catch 
the  favoring  winds  which  blow  from  the  world  of  politics, 
instead  of  holding  austerely  on  before  the  trade-winds 
of  her  religious  principles.  Everywhere  we  witness  a 
more  servile  submission  of  the  Christian  to  the  Caesar- 
ian temper.  Christ  shelters  timidly  under  the  martial 

273 


274 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


shadow  of  Caesar.  Pontius  Pilate  stretches  his  protect- 
ing arm  over  a Jesus  who  with  whispering  humbleness 
promises  to  utilize  his  imperial  enterprises  for  “ mission- 
ary ” purposes  and  “ the  evangelization  of  the  world  ” ! 

Two  kings  are  to-day  laying  fresh  claim  to  the  alle- 
giance of  Christendom  — Christ  and  Caesar.  In  form, 
of  course,  neither  claim  is  absolute  ; for  we  are  yet 
only  half-baked ; both  the  men  and  the  motives  are 
mixed.  It  is  essential  to  a great  act  of  moral  decision 
that  the  choice  be  obscured,  the  issue  complicated,  the 
alternatives  illusive,  the  possibility  of  error  balanced 
with  the  probability  of  truth  ; and  Christendom  is  still 
troubled  by  a doubt  whether  the  tempter  be  devil  or 
angel,  whether  the  swift  and  easy  sword  of  Caesar  be 
really  a better  way  of  acquiring  the  kingdoms  of  the 
world  and  the  glory  of  them  than  is  the  slow  and  suffer- 
ing cross  of  Christ.  Yet  habit  of  mind  counts  for  much  ; 
tempter  and  aim,  ideal  and  motive,  begin  once  more  to 
divide  the  sheep  from  the  goats.  Slowly  the  masses  of 
men,  the  church  in  the  world  and  the  world  in  the 
church,  are  gravitating  into  one  of  two  camps,  — the 
tents  of  Caesar  or  the  tabernacles  of  Christ.  Dimly 
the  distinctive  goals  of  modern  civilization  begin  to  glim- 
mer through  the  gloom,  — sovereignty  by  brute  force 
or  salvation  by  moral  influence.  Strongly  the  claims 
of  two  rival  monarchs  begin  to  urge  themselves  upon 
the  modern  world,  — bloody  Mars  or  “gentle  Jesus.” 
A new  strenuousness  begins  to  be  felt  in  the  historic 
contest  between  the  Prince  of  Peace  and  the  Prince 
of  the  Power  of  the  Air.  The  Heavenly  Father  of 
Christianity  and  the  blood-spattered  Baal  of  Imperialism 


TO  THE  MISSIONARY 


275 

have  closed  in  grapple  for  the  soul  of  the  twentieth  cen- 
tury. The  question  is,  Who  is  to  dominate  the  Chris- 
tian world,  Imperial  Baal  or  Christian  God  ? If  Baal  be 
God,  follow  him ; but  if  the  Lord  be  God,  then  follow 
Him.  The  modern  church  is  in  the  wilderness  of 
temptation.  She  must  decide  for  conquest  or  cruci- 
fixion ; she  must  take  up  either  the  sword  or  the  cross  ; 
she  must  choose  this  day  whom  she  will  serve.  “ Under 
which  king,  Bezonian  ? Speak,  or  die  ! ” 

The  heroic  types  of  missionary  enterprise  — Paul  who 
sought  the  spiritual  supremacy  of  Christ  and  Xavier 
who  sought  the  spiritual  supremacy  of  his  church,  fol- 
lowed by  the  greatest  of  the  moderns  — invaded  the 
deepest  recesses  of  heathendom  and  savagery  with  no 
other  resources  than  their  own  sublime  personalities, 
sought  no  assistance  from  the  arm  of  flesh,  invoked  no 
vengeance  on  those  who  refused  their  message  or  took 
their  lives.  Nor  is  the  heroic  breed  yet  dead.  Vast 
and  massive  figures  of  the  antique  type  still  uprear 
themselves  before  the  strongholds  of  savagedom,  de- 
claring that  the  weapons  of  their  warfare  are  not  carnal 
but  spiritual,  and  mighty  through  God  alone.  Still  with 
us  are  groups  of  missionaries  who  decline  to  accept  the 
money  of  heathendom  to  compensate,  or  to  call  in  the 
armies  of  Caesar  to  avenge,  the  death  of  their  martyrs ; 
genuine  apostles  who  disclaim  the  protection  of  the 
warlike  powers  and  place  themselves  on  the  same  foot- 
ing of  toleration  and  peril  of  death  as  their  native  con- 
verts.1 But  a degenerate  type,  born  of  demoralized 
forces,  has  now  appeared  and  tends  to  occupy  the  field. 


276 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


Along  with  commercialism  (the  expansion  of  trade) 
and  imperialism  (the  expansion  of  politics)  new  temp- 
tations successfully  menace  the  spiritual  independence 
of  the  missionary,  who,  availing  himself  of  the  openings 
into  heathendom  made  by  the  trader  and  the  soldier, 
now  finds  himself  united  to  their  fortunes,  compelled 
to  indorse  their  schemes,  and  assimilated  more  or  less 
consciously  to  their  methods  and  aims.  The  mission- 
ary also  is  driven  by  the  spirit  into  the  wilderness,  to 
be  tempted  of  the  — trader  and  politician. 

This  inclination  — not  simply  to  take  advantage  of 
the  openings  into  heathendom  made  by  imperial  ex- 
pansion, which  would  be  natural,  but  to  encourage 
aggressiveness  for  the  sake  of  missions  — may  fitly  be 
read  in  the  utterances  of  representative  churchmen. 
One  of  these,2  at  a great  missionary  meeting  and  in 
his  own  cathedral,  declared  that  since  the  inhabitants 
of  the  British  islands  had  been  “ obliged  to  go  forth 
in  order  to  find  new  markets  for  their  wares  and 
new  homes  for  their  people,”  since  they  “could  not 
possibly  sit  at  home  and  see  millions  of  their  fel- 
low-countrymen starve,”  and  since  “ in  the  search  for 
trade  and  new  lands  they  came  almost  inevitably  into 
conflict  not  only  with  their  competitors  but  also  with 
many  of  those  they  desired  to  make  their  customers, 
and  in  those  conflicts  they  frequently  gained  the  vic- 
tory, as  a consequence  of  that  they  were  obliged  to 
organize  and  govern  the  peoples  they  had  conquered. 
. . . If  they  wanted  markets  they  must  take  the  land, 
. . . that  is  not  their  fault  ; they  are  bound  to  get 
food  for  their  people.”  No  doubt  these  things  had  been 


TO  THE  MISSIONARY 


277 


accompanied  by  acts  “ of  which  they  were  ashamed  ” but 
they  found  compensation  in  the  “trial  of  their  strength 
and  the  discipline  of  their  character.”  The  whole 
process  was,  “ to  some  extent  at  least,  a providential 
call.”  Now  what  is  to  be  said  of  the  economics  which 
assumes  that  the  British  islands  can  no  longer  afford 
food  and  home  for  their  population  ? and  what  of  the 
morals  which  can  justify  making  customers  by  force, 
annexing  countries  and  territories  for  the  sake  of  sell- 
ing cotton  and  brandy  to  the  inhabitants,  killing  men 
in  order  to  avoid  starvation ; and  which  can  find  com- 
pensation for  theft  and  murder,  not  in  anything  done 
for  the  plundered  and  slain  victims  but  — in  the  aug- 
mented power  of  the  thief  and  murderer  ? What,  also, 
of  the  curious  lapse  from  sense  in  failing  to  see  that 
the  same  argument,  precisely,  will  at  any  time  justify 
the  have-nots  within  those  islands  in  killing  and  rob- 
bing the  haves,  instead  of  emigrating  for  a similar  pur- 
pose,— workman,  laborer,  and  curate  combining  to  kill 
capitalist,  squire,  and  bishop,  preliminary  to  looting  the 
mansion,  the  hall,  and  the  palace  ? May  not  these  tre- 
mendous object  lessons  on  how  to  plunder  and  kill  on 
the  grand  imperial  scale  be  hereafter  cited  by  starving 
populations  to  the  extreme  discomfort  of  pious  ecclesias- 
tics, who  may  not,  under  the  altered  circumstances,  be  so 
forward  to  recognize  the  working  of  Providence?  There 
is  good  scripture  for  suggesting  that  those  who  take  the 
sword  wholesale  abroad  may  perish  in  a retail  kind  of 
way  by  the  sword  at  home.  Another  typical  utterance 
was  made  by  a prince  of  the  Anglican  church  when 
he  declared  that  the  call  made  to  all  the  world  which 


278 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


has  heard  the  name  of  Christ  was  made  especially  to 
the  British  people,  because,  of  all  nations  on  the  face 
of  the  earth,  there  was  none  that  had  the  same  oppor- 
tunities of  teaching  other  lands  the  truth ; while  a 
world-renowned  Presbyterian  summed  it  all  up  in  the 
affirmation  that  Britain  was  the  new  Israel,  with  a mis- 
sion to  all  the  earth.  This  is  the  new  imperial  doctrine 
of  the  patriot  missionary,  the  most  popular  heresy  of 
a church  under  the  yoke  of  worldly  ideals.  Ask,  Why 
do  we  fight  ? his  answer  is,  “That  we  may  defend  and 
preserve  the  high  interests  which  the  God  of  Nations 
and  of  Christendom  has  committed  to  the  keeping 
of  the  country.” 3 “If  this  country  wishes  to  con- 
tinue her  mission  of  Christianizing  all  the  heathen 
nations  of  the  world,  and  promoting  the  great  cause  of 
liberty,  ...  it  must  go  on  with  the  war  ...  all  the 
Free  Churches  are  hoping  that  this  war  will  be  prose- 
cuted to  a successful  issue  . . . his  church  is  prac- 
tically unanimous.”  4 He  “believes  that  Great  Britain 
is  a trustee  for  God  and  for  the  everlasting  gospel 
of  his  grace,  and  that  the  trust  estate  can  only  be 
properly  maintained  by  the  ultimate  success  of  the 
British  arms.”5  Great  Britain,  alas,  has  no  monop- 
oly of  this  unholy  heresy ! An  American  missionary 
society  defends  its  country’s  aggression  on  the  same 
lines  : “ God  is  using  the  wars  of  our  times  for  the 
evangelization  of  the  nations.”6  Even  the  peaceful 
Buddhist 7 has  caught  the  proud  political  heresy,  ex- 
claiming, “ Why,  then,  do  we  fight  at  all  ? Because 
we  do  not  find  this  world  as  it  ought  to  be.  Be- 
cause there  are  so  many  perverted  creatures,  so  many 


TO  THE  MISSIONARY 


279 


wayward  thoughts,  so  many  ill-directed  hearts,  due  to 
ignorant  subjectivity.  For  this  reason  Buddhists  are 
never  tired  of  combating  all  productions  of  ignorance, 
and  their  fight  must  be  to  the  bitter  end.  They  will 
show  no  quarter.”  Alas  for  this  poor  world  ! If  all  the 
hitherto  peaceful  nations  are  now  to  fling  themselves 
into  the  arena  ; if  the  lion,  bear,  eagle  of  Western  civili- 
zation are  now  to  be  joined  by  the  dragon  of  the  East 
to  tear  “each  other  in  their  slime”  ; and  if  they  are 
to  go  on  fighting  as  long  as  there  remains  a relic  of 
“ignorant  subjectivity”  in  the  breast  of  man,  — then 
farewell  hope  ! The  doctrine  of  the  missionary  impe- 
rialist is  not  new;  it  was  stated  long  ago  by  that  stout 
marauder  and  crusader,  De  Bracy,  in  Ivanhoe  : “ And 
for  Christianity,  here  is  the  stout  Baron  Reginald  Front- 
de-Boeuf,  whose  utter  abomination  is  a Jew  ; and  the  good 
Knight  Templar,  Brian  de  Bois-Guilbert,  whose  trade  is 
to  slay  Saracens.  If  these  are  not  good  marks  of  Chris- 
tianity, I know  no  other  which  they  bear  about  them.” 

It  does  not  occur  to  these  sanctified  upholders  of 
imperialism  for  the  sake  of  religion  that  since  our  ex- 
ceptional “opportunities  of  teaching  other  lands  the 
truth  ” are  created,  for  the  most  part,  by  the  mailed 
fist  of  our  soldiery,  Islam  would  be  a more  truthful 
comparison  than  Israel.  Or,  if  the  comparison  revolves 
round  the  occupation  of  Canaan,  with  the  difference 
merely  that  the  New  Israel’s  Canaan  is  “all  the  earth,” 
then  there  is  good  scripture  analogy  for  our  benevo- 
lent annexations  and  armed  ecclesiastical  expeditions, 
as  well  as  for  destroying  those  who  are  blind  and 
wicked  enough  to  resist,  who  know  not  the  day  of  their 


280 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


visitation,  and  whose  sin  must  be  on  their  own  heads : 
for  that  was  the  method  of  the  original  Israel,  under 
Joshua.  Only,  let  the  analogy  be  carried  through ; 
when  the  disconcerting  conclusion  will  be  reached  that 
the  “New  Israel”  is  destined  to  be  turned  out  of  its 
“ all-the-earth  ” Canaan,  and  its  place  occupied  by  the 
very  political  and  religious  powers  it  has  held  in  most 
abhorrence : for  this  also  happened  to  the  original 
Israel,  under  its  later  kings.  There  would  be  nothing 
strange  or  new  in  this  providential  lesson,  on  the  grand 
imperial  scale,  that  those  New  Israelites  who  take  the 
sword  must  perish  by  the  sword.  Yet  another  repre- 
sentative missionary  — this  time  of  the  Roman  Cath- 
olic order,  so  that  the  instances  may  be  impartial  — 
put  the  matter  even  more  squarely  and  picturesquely 
when  he  declared  that  the  Catholic  church  was  justified 
in  obtaining,  by  force  if  necessary,  a right  to  propagate 
its  doctrines  ; for  “ if  force  could  be  used  to  secure  an 
open  door  for  the  sale  of  opium,  kerosene,  and  flannel- 
ette, it  might  well  be  used  to  keep  an  open  door  for  the 
religion  of  Jesus  Christ.” 8 It  evidently  pleased  this 
good  brother  to  be  facetious  ; but  fun  cannot  excuse 
the  insult  offered  to  his  gospel,  first  in  making  it 
responsible  for  the  doctrine  that  people  might  be  killed 
for  the  sake  of  trading  with  those  who  survived,  and 
then  in  submitting  to  introduce  it  on  the  same  terms 
as  the  vilest  commodities  of  modern  trade. 

The  first  missionary  apostle,  it  is  plain,  expected  to 
convert  the  world  by  love ; for  he  talked  in  an  ab- 
surd, transcendental  way  about  feeding  one’s  enemy  if 
he  hungered,  and,  if  he  thirsted,  giving  him  drink; 


TO  THE  MISSIONARY 


281 


commanded  to  recompense  no  man  evil  for  evil,  but  to 
overcome  evil  with  good  ; and  would  have  suffocated 
with  shame  had  any  one  suggested  his  preaching  to  the 
barbarians  of  Asia  Minor  from  under  the  panoply  of  a mil- 
itary escort,  or  that  his  martyrdom  should  be  avenged 
by  a “punitive  expedition.”  The  rising  Christian  sect 
would  never  have  secured  the  adhesion  of  Saul  of 
Tarsus,  had  he  witnessed  the  relatives  of  the  martyred 
Stephen,  whose  clothes  he  held,  huckstering  with  the 
temple  party  for  compensation.  Sects  that  sell  their 
martyrs  for  gold  secure  Simon  Magus  for  a convert, 
but  never  a Paul  ; they  develop  the  pretty  ecclesias- 
tical trick  known  as  “ simony,”  never  a hero-martyr 
apostlehood.  It  was  the  same  ridiculous,  transcenden- 
tal apostle  who  recommended  to  the  Christian  mission- 
ary such  weapons  as  the  breastplate  of  righteousness, 
the  shield  of  faith,  the  helmet  of  salvation,  the  sword 
of  the  Spirit ; and  who  specifically  declared  that  the 
weapons  of  his  warfare  were  not  carnal  but  spiritual, 
and  mighty  through  God  to  the  pulling  down  of  strong- 
holds. There  is  now,  however,  a school  of  missionaries 
who  recognize  the  evangelistic  potency  of  the  bayonet 
and  the  Maxim  gun,  prefer  to  follow  in  the  wake  of  an 
army  corps  armed  with  the  latest  machinery  for  scien- 
tific slaughter,  and  see  a beautiful  providence  in  the 
arrangement  whereby  Caesar  kills  off  a number  of  peo- 
ple who  do  not  sufficiently  appreciate  the  blessings  of 
opium,  kerosene,  and  flannelette,  in  order  that  Christ 
may  preach  the  duties  of  patience,  meekness,  and  non- 
resistance  to  those  who  survive.  When  danger  threat- 
ens he,  as  described  by  one  of  them,  asks  that  troops 


282 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


be  sent  up  and  collects  all  the  white  men  available  (in- 
cluding the  Roman  Catholic  fathers),  for  the  rising  is 
a serious  matter,  not  only  anti-European  but  also  anti- 
christian,  since  the  native  Christians  naturally  side 
with  the  government.9  He  leads  his  converts  through 
Christianity  to  sedition  and  treason  against  their  native 
rulers.  The  first  missionaries  went  everywhere  preach- 
ing the  Word  — they  may  be  said  to  have  been  Ser- 
mon missionaries  ; the  reformation  missionaries  (having 
learned  the  art  of  printing)  went  everywhere  distrib- 
uting the  Word  — they  might  be  called  Bible  mis- 
sionaries ; but  the  new  type  of  missionary  has  been 
reenforced  by  an  agent  more  persuasive  than  either 
Sermon  or  Bible — he  may  be  called  the  Maxim  mis- 
sionary. The  historic  commission  ordained  the  preacher 
to  go  into  all  the  world  and  preach  the  gospel  to  every 
creature  ; but  when  it  is  translated  into  terms  of 
empire  it  resolves  itself  into  a commission  to  carry 
fire  and  sword  against  peoples  more  innocent  and  fre- 
quently happier  than  ourselves,  because  they  refuse  our 
shoddy  goods  and  the  shoddier  gospel  behind  them. 
There  is  something  more  alien  to  religion  than  the  use 
of  force  against  the  truth  ; that  is  the  use  of  force  in 
favor  of  it;  and  this  is  the  sin  of  the  imperial  mission- 
ary when  he  loses  faith  in  moral  power  and  truckles  to 
the  consul,  the  chartered  official,  the  soldiery.  The 
gospel  also  takes  a lift  upon  the  powder  cart.  It  avails 
nothing  that  a little  time,  patience,  and  persuasion 
would  make  a way  for  both  goods  and  gospel  : for  your 
trader  has  no  time  to  wait,  he  is  in  a hurry  to  make 
money  ; and  your  preacher  has  no  time  to  wait,  he  is 


TO  THE  MISSIONARY 


283 


in  a hurry  to  make  converts;  and  your  politician  has 
no  time  to  wait,  he  is  in  a hurry  to  make  subjects  ; so 
that  the  miserable  victims  of  the  most  omnipotent  and 
unscrupulous  trinity  that  ever  preyed  upon  mankind  — 
Mammon,  Dominion,  and  Proselytism,  or,  if  the  terms 
be  plainer,  Greed,  Empire,  and  Fanaticism  — have  no 
choice  but  to  render  up  at  once  their  land,  their  liberty, 
their  religion  — or  their  life.  The  pretense  that  it  is 
wholly  to  the  advantage  of  virtue  that  the  primitive 
peoples  should  be  subjugated  is  being  found  out.  The 
letters  of  Robertson  of  Brighton  tell  how  he  went  to 

dine  with  a certain  Captain  H and  heard  many 

stories  of  the  Kaffir  war ; but  “ horrible  as  all  this  is 
[Kaffir  cruelty],  they  are  not  so  ferocious  as  our 
English  soldiers.  ...  I feel  strongly  on  the  side  of  the 
Kaffirs.  They  feel  that  they  will  become  as  degraded 
as  Hottentots  by  being  subject  to  the  English.  At 
present  they  do  not  drink,  and  have  a much  finer  sense 
of  honor  than  the  brutal  soldier.”  10  Kaffirs,  according  to 
this  authority,  are,  as  compared  with  the  British  soldier, 
more  sober,  more  humane,  more  respectful  to  women. 

The  modern  world  is  not  now  dependent  upon  the 
Missionary  Herald  for  its  chronicles  of  the  mission 
field  ; it  has  other  sources  of  information  ; and  it  has 
seen  the  up-to-date  missionary  at  work.  When  a native 
king  and  people  exhibit  any  unwillingness  to  receive 
the  Maxim  missionary  and  his  military  escort,  the  for- 
mer tarries  in  a safe  spot  till  the  latter  has  “ dealt 
with”11  the  dusky  patriots,  the  result  being  the  mas- 
sacre of  an  almost  helpless  populace.  The  Emir  has  to 


284 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


be  “dealt  with”  as  “an  opponent  of  civilization.” 12 
“The  people  were  divinely  commanded  to  go  forward 
to  wars  of  conquest  ...  he  is  a firm  believer  in  uncon- 
ditional surrender,  a fight  to  the  finish,  and  complete 
annexation.” 13  The  conquering  ecclesiastic  is  unre- 
tarded by  the  knowledge  that,  along  with  the  bagman 
and  the  bravo,  he  is  introducing  to  an  uncorrupted 
people  the  most  disgusting  vices  of  civilization.14  For 
he  cannot  admit  the  possibility  of  happiness  apart  from 
union  with  the  imperial  race  ; and  if,  unfortunately, 
that  union  carries  with  it  not  only  the  unspeakable 
blessings  of  kerosene  and  flannelette  but  also  the  un- 
mitigated curses  of  the  opium  den,  the  canteen,  and 
the  brothel,  — does  not  the  sun  also  cast  a shadow? 
And  what  man  would  be  fool  enough  to  reject  the  light 
because  of  its  inevitable  shade  ? Do  not  they  have 
“a  lower  conception  of  the  character  of  God,  a lower 
interpretation  of  his  word  ? ” 15  It  is  enough.  Onward, 
Christian  soldiers  ! A “Pan-African  Conference”  pathet- 
ically prays  : “ Let  not  the  cloak  of  Christian  mission- 
ary enterprise  be  allowed  in  the  future,  as  so  often  in 
the  past,  to  hide  the  ruthless  economic  exploitation  and 
political  downfall  of  less  developed  nations  whose  chief 
fault  has  been  reliance  on  the  plighted  troth  of  the 
Christian  church”;16  but  the  prayer  falls  unheeded 
upon  the  ear  of  the  New  Israelite  ; nay,  stirs  him  to  a 
fine  heat ; since  to  expostulate  with  a member  of  an 
imperial  race  and  an  imperial  church  is  the  same  thing 
as  to  insult  him.  We  are  “justified  in  invoking  the 
blessing  of  the  Most  High  on  the  British  arms,  and  to 
use  the  magnificent  imagery  of  the  Hebrew  prophet,  in 


TO  THE  MISSIONARY 


285 


speaking  of  the  sword  of  Britain  as  bathed  in  heaven, 
...  to  carry  out  the  work  intrusted  to  the  Anglo-Saxon 
race.”  17  “ He  is  glad  to  see  the  extension  of  the  em- 
pire of  their  gracious  sovereign  . . . the  members  of 
our  colonial  empire  throb  with  love  for  one  another.”  18 
Nor  will  the  apostle  of  Maxim  guns  be  deterred  by 
thought  of  the  invincible  prejudice  he  is  planting  in  the 
native  mind,  — the  belief,  namely,  that  the  real  object 
of  the  missionary  is  political  conquest  ; for,  after  all, 
the  powerful  logic  of  the  cannon  will  silence,  if  not 
all  objections,  at  least  all  objectors.  Those  who  will 
not  become  converts  can  be  converted  into  corpses,  and 
from  above  the  church  door  their  heads  may  even  frown 
a warning  upon  the  stiff-necked,  as  in  other  days  the 
heads  of  rebels  used  to-  admonish  from  city  gates  ; for 
“two  of  the  ringleaders  have  been  decapitated,  and  their 
heads  exhibited  in  the  mission  church  at  Tshihing.”  19 
Neither  can  a New  Israelite  be  expected  to  ponder  the 
reasonableness  of  such  as  reject  a messenger  who  bom- 
bards them  with  bullets  as  well  as  Bibles,  connives  at 
the  destruction  of  their  bodies  as  well  as  their  faith, 
and  demands  the  surrender  of  their  territory  as  well  as 
their  religion  ; nor,  putting  himself  in  their  place,  to 
perceive  how  the  manifest  hardship  of  the  first  process 
is  likely  to  invalidate  the  beneficence  of  the  second, 
and  the  selfishness  of  the  policy  to  cast  suspicion 
on  the  unselfishness  of  the  gospel.  The  whole  thing 
hangs  together  for  both  the  pagan  and  the  mission- 
ary ; they  are  both  the  creatures  of  manifest  destiny, 
of  providential  New  Israelism  ; the  alternative  is 
lumped  into  one  grand  imperial  whole  which  cannot 


286 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


be  divided, — opium,  kerosene,  flannelette,  brandy,  gospel 
— or  death  ! 

To  this,  then,  at  last  the  doctrine  of  the  New  Israel 
has  brought  us ; its  ripe  product  is  the  Maxim  mis- 
sionary. He  is  the  new  John-the-Baptist  forerunner  of 
Christ : his  the  new  voice  crying  with  dumdum  bullets 
in  African  and  Chinese  wildernesses ; his  the  new 
method  of  preparing  the  way  of  the  Lord  with  blood 
and  fire ; his  the  new  idea  of  making  straight  in  the 
desert  of  bloody  corpses  and  burned  villages  a highway 
for  his  God  ; his  the  new  style  of  making  low  every 
mountain  and  hill  by  killing  off  opponents ; his  the 
new  way  of  exalting  every  valley  by  piling  them  high 
with  corpses  ; his  the  new  conception  that  the  glory  of 
the  Lord  shall  be  revealed  by  slaughter  ; his  the  new 
falsehood  that  all  flesh  shall  see  it  together,  the  butch- 
ered victims  of  the  new  evangelism  being,  obviously, 
deprived  of  the  wonderful  sight ; his  all  these  mimic- 
ries of  a dead  Israel  and  a living  Islam  ; his,  too,  the 
old,  old  lie  that  it  is  permissible  to  do  evil  that  good 
may  come,  that  it  is  possible  for  the  wrath  of  man  to 
work  the  righteousness  of  God  ! 

Though  it  is  evident  that  the  method  of  Jesus  and 
Paul  no  longer  suits  the  Maxim  school  of  missionary 
enterprise,  it  must  not  be  supposed  that  the  church  has 
formally  renounced  the  gospel  of  brotherhood  and  good 
will.  Caiaphas  — whether  figuring  on  high  as  Primate, 
Moderator,  President,  or  Chairman  — knows  his  busi- 
ness better  than  that.  Caiaphas  knows  the  value  of  the 
time-honored  phrases  to  point  an  appeal  and  adorn  a 


TO  THE  MISSIONARY 


287 


peroration,  knows  that  they  have  a soothing  influence 
upon  the  spirits,  and  a stimulating  effect  upon  the 
pockets,  of  elderly  ladies,  — the  practical  men  knowing, 
meanwhile,  that  the  Maxim  gospel  is  also  ready  to  be 
preached  with  the  whole  unction  of  the  bayonet-armed 
elbow.  At  home,  surrounded  by  pasturing  flocks,  when 
the  funds  have  to  be  got  in,  the'  church’s  symbol  is 
the  Lamb ; but  abroad,  amid  obstinate  and  threatening 
wolves,  the  Lion  is  better  displayed,  and  roars  against 
the  prey  with  all  the  thunders  of  his  artillery.  Amid 
those  far-off  Gentile  races  there  are  audiences  which 
find  a well-directed  shell  more  moving  than  the  old,  old 
story  which  brings  at  once  the  tears  and  the  subscrip- 
tions from  the  docile  flocks  of  New  Israel.  Wise  as  the 
serpent  and  harmless  as  the  dove,  Caiaphas  contrives 
to  run  two  gospels  side  by  side, — -Christ’s,  which  he 
describes  as  the  gospel  of  “transcendentalism,”  and  his 
own,  which  he  calls  the  “gospel  of  common  sense.” 
The  first  is  employed  chiefly  amid  the  peaceful  scenes 
where  the  New  Israelites  meet  under  one  political  flag, 
or  in  back  alleys  and  mission  halls  where  indigent 
women  and  weakly  men  assemble  to  be  converted  in  a 
nice,  tractable,  orthodox  kind  of  way  ; the  second  is 
useful  when  the  church  goes  to  evangelize  the  ruder 
stuff  of  Africa  and  China,  where  the  persuasive  power  of 
the  lyddite  shell  is  found  most  efficacious.  The  first  is 
preached  by  studious  lads  who  are  sent  to  the  university 
and  trained  in  the  vocabulary  of  “transcendentalism”; 
the  second  by  roystering  blades  who  are  clothed  in 
khaki,  and  drilled  in  the  doctrines  of  “common  sense.” 
It  is  thus  that  the  church,  while  satisfying  those  who 


288 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


have  hankerings  after  the  gospel  according  to  Christ, 
contrives  also  to  make  happy  the  souls  of  fire-eating 
missionaries  with  leanings  towards  the  gospel  according 
to  Cain.  And  all  the  time  the  cry  of  the  starving  helot 
ascends  from  the  untilled  fields  of  Christendom  ; the 
curse  of  the  gambler,  the  oath  of  the  drunkard,  the  wail 
of  the  prostitute,  and  the  bitter  cry  of  the  children  rise 
from  its  abominable  cities  to  a not  forgetful  heaven  ! 

If  there  be  a worse  feature  about  our  new  evangelism 
than  that  the  Maxim  should  prepare  the  way  of  the 
missionary,  the  bayonet  that  of  the  Bible,  the  gunboat 
that  of  the  gospel,  and  imperial  piracy  that  of  interna- 
tional brotherhood,  it  is  found  precisely  on  the  re- 
verse side,  where  the  process  is  turned  round,  — the 
preacher  pioneering  for  the  trader,  the  evangelist  for 
the  soldier,  the  missioner  for  the  consul  and  the  cruiser, 
the  white  spouse  of  Christ  and  universal  human  brother- 
hood debasing  herself  before  the  Caesar  of  imperial-race 
supremacy.  A very  religious  imperialist 20  confesses  to 
some  uneasiness  of  conscience  whether,  after  all,  the 
movement  towards  Anglo-Saxon  federation  be  anything 
more  than  mere  comradeship  in  arms,  but  thinks  to 
sanctify  it  by  making  prominent  the  importance  of  mis- 
sionary work, — -attempting,  as  self-deluded  pharisees 
have  attempted  all  through  time,  to  sanctify  piracy  by 
prayer,  to  justify  the  blood  of  murder  in  the  name  of 
the  blood  of  martyrdom,  to  commit  acts  of  slaughter 
while  talking  cant  about  sacrifice,  to  bring  the  cross  to 
bless  and  sanctify  the  flag.  Imperial  pharisee  is  he 
also  who  pleads  the  overruling  of  armed  aggression  for 


TO  THE  MISSIONARY 


289 


the  divine  glory,  not  knowing  that  he  is  guilty  of  cant, 
hypocrisy,  blasphemy,  and  sacrilege  : of  cant  because 
the  slightest  self-examination  would  expose  his  own 
sophistry,  of  hypocrisy  because  it  covers  with  a thin 
veil  of  religious  phraseology  what  is  mere  commercial 
and  political  speculation,  of  blasphemy  because  it  trades 
upon  holy  words  and  motives  to  excuse  carnal  and  selfish 
ends,  and  of  sacrilege  because  it  profanes  with  blood  and 
plunder  a whole  sphere  of  thought  that  should  be  holy 
unto  the  Lord.  Overrule  to  his  own  glory  ? By  all 
means  ; but  it  is  not  necessary  to  do  evil  that  good  may 
come,  as  if  the  Lord  were  short  of  opportunities. 

Caiaphas,  to  be  sure,  is  wont  to  excuse  the  incon- 
gruity between  the  instruments  of  physical  compulsion 
and  the  methods  of  spiritual  persuasion  by  the  worn 
fallacy  that  the  teachings  of  Jesus  are  impracticable. 
But  why,  then,  force  them  upon  others  at  the  point  of 
the  bayonet  ? Why,  if  he  finds  it  impossible  in  a Chris- 
tian country  to  be  a Christian,  does  he  devastate  another 
country  because  it  is  not  Christian,  or  to  compel  it  to 
become  Christian  ? Why  does  he  think  to  dispose  men’s 
minds  to  accept  a religion  which  sanctifies  acts  that 
must  appear  to  them  cruel  and  wicked  ? Why  does  he 
ask  a heathen  to  accept  principles  he  is  in  the  very  act 
of  himself  violating  ? Why  does  he  not  see  that  it  is  the 
sublime  of  humbug  to  preach  meekness  and  nonresist- 
ance to  those  whose  territory  he  steals  and  whose  tem- 
ples he  defiles,  while  denying  the  authority  of  these 
virtues  in  the  religion  of  the  conquerors  ? The  heathen, 
be  sure,  is  not  a fool  ; and  even  when  he  yields  to  the 
moral  beauty  of  the  Christian  ideal  he  continues  to 


290 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


protest  against  the  grossness  of  the  imperial  carica- 
ture, denouncing  it  as  a dangerous  thing  that  holds  a 
bottle  of  gin  in  one  hand  and  a Common  Prayer  Book 
in  the  other,  carries  a glass  of  rum  as  a vade  mecum 
to  the  hymn  book,  points  one  hand  to  the  skies  with 
exhortations  to  lay  up  treasures  in  heaven  and  then, 
whilst  one  is  looking  up,  with  the  other  hand  seizes 
one’s  worldly  goods,  labels  one’s  ancestral  forests, 
and  places  one’s  patrimony  under  inexplicable  legisla- 
tion.21 And  why  (since  we  have  fallen  into  the  inquisi- 
torial vein)  does  the  Maxim  missionary  attempt  to  justify 
his  misbegotten  zeal  by  maligning  the  character  of  the 
pagan  patriot  whom  he  can  neither  proselytize  to  his 
faith  nor  enlist  for  his  flag?  Why,  when  the  territory 
he  covets  as  an  imperialist  belongs  to  a people  nom- 
inally Christian  like  himself,  and  whom  therefore  he 
cannot  pretend  to  convert  as  a missionary,  — why  does 
he  seek  to  cover  his  own  lapses  from  the  gospel  by 
exaggerating  the  defects  of  the  enemy  into  such  hid- 
eous libels  as  that  he  illtreats  and  enslaves  the  native 
races  more  than  ourselves  do  ; that  he  drives  native 
men  in  his  plow  instead  of  oxen,  shoots  his  “ slaves  ” 
when  they  become  too  old  for  work,  saws  his  slave 
girls  between  planks  of  wood  when  they  refuse  to 
divulge  the  military  secrets  of  their  tribes  ? Why  ? 
There  is  no  answer,  save  that  for  political  reasons 
he  has  deliberately  renounced  the  missionary  motive, 
which  is  to  win  men  by  love,  and  fallen  back  upon 
the  imperial  motive,  which  is  to  gain  territory  by 
force.  When  the  missionary  slanders  it  is  easier  for 
the  soldier  to  slay. 


TO  THE  MISSIONARY 


291 


This  political  temper  is  responsible  for  many  of  the 
tragedies  of  the  modern  mission  field,  and  turns  some 
of  the  deaths  which  ought  to  have  been  glorious  mar- 
tyrdoms into  disorderly  executions  under  lynch  law. 
Persecution  of  missionaries  is  usually  of  the  nature  of 
retaliation  for  social  and  political  injuries  received  from 
their  countrymen  and  is  seldom,  in  the  first  place, 
religious.  The  heathen  is  tolerant  of  other  gods  until 
they  begin  to  meddle  with  his  political  institutions  and 
trespass  upon  his  domestic  arrangements.  Like  other 
histories  the  history  of  the  mission  field  requires  to 
be  rewritten  from  that  point  of  view,  and  a good  deal 
of  material  will  be  found  scattered  throughout  the 
travel  literature  of  the  world.22  Testimony  has  been 
offered  to  the  fact  that  in  China,  to  take  the  most 
recent  and  flaring  example,  the  attitude  of  the  Chinese 
towards  the  missionary  pure  and  simple  was  friendly,  so 
far  that  even  Buddhist  priests  would  permit  Christian 
preachers  to  sleep  in  their  temples  and  offer  morning 
prayers  at  their  altars,- — taking  an  intelligent,  though 
critical,  interest  in  their  proceedings.  Many  mission- 
aries suffered  death  : few,  however,  for  their  religion 
in  itself  or  their  strictly  religious  propaganda  ; some, 
because  they  were  seen  to  be  in  direct  collusion  with 
those  whose  aspect  was  that  of  the  invader  and  thief ; 
all,  on  account  of  their  nationality  rather  than  their 
faith,  — not  because  they  were  Christians  but  because 
they  were  foreigners,  and  were  suspected  of  designs 
upon  the  political  integrity,  more  than  the  hereditary 
faiths,  of  China.23  The  heathen’s  instincts  in  this  mat- 
ter are  wholly  sound,  and  have  recently  been  backed 


292 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


by  the  greatest  master  of  foreign  politics.24  He  sees 
that  the  missionary  invariably  precedes  the  consul,  the 
consul  the  gunboat,  the  gunboat  the  armed  expedi- 
tion; and,  being  incapable  of  fine  distinctions,  he  lumps 
them  as  common  enemies,  to  be  exterminated  while  yet 
there  is  time.  He  sees  the  religious  teacher  walking 
hand  in  glove  with  the  civil  ruler,  the  foreign  agent ; 
and  he  not  unseldom  hears  him  clamor  for  his  coun- 
try’s political  influence  (as  in  Turkey  and  Oceania),  or 
for  compensation  for  losses  (as  in  China),  or  for  complete 
annexation  (as  in  Uganda)  ; and  thus  he  is  convinced 
that  religious  propaganda  is  only  another  form  of  for- 
eign invasion.  He  sees  that  the  church  prepares  the 
way  for  empire,  the  cross  for  the  flag,  Christ  for  Caesar  ; 
and  he  rouses  himself  to  resist  even  unto  blood  because 
he  rejects,  not  those  great  spiritual  realities,  but  these 
their  political  counterparts;  because,  no  more  than  the 
Maxim  missionary,  is  he  able  to  understand,  to  distin- 
guish, to  dissever,  to  separate  in  thought,  the  Kingdom 
of  Heaven  from  the  kingdoms  of  this  world.  In  his 
fear  and  dread  of  imperialism  he  rejects  Christianity, 
in  his  hatred  of  the  flag  smites  the  cross,  in  his  man- 
ful opposition  to  the  crowned  Caesar  pitifully  crucifies 
anew  the  Christ.  Into  this  horrible  pit  of  lust  and 
pillage  and  blood  has  war  and  the  war  spirit  cast  the 
Christian  world,  there  to  welter  till  it  disowns  force 
and  lays  down  the  sword. 

The  fact  is  — and  it  cannot  be  too  frequently  or  too 
forcibly  driven  home  upon  the  mind  — that  the  twen- 
tieth century  has  risen  upon  a pagan  revival,  in  which 


TO  THE  MISSIONARY 


293 


the  material  vices  born  of  wealth  and  the  aesthetic  cor- 
ruptions born  of  luxury  have  overborne  the  simple  vir- 
tues and  homely  pleasures  proper  to  unspoiled  Christian 
ethics.  The  evangelizing  ideal  which  traveled  abroad 
has  naturally  conformed  to  the  ecclesiastical  ideal  which 
prevailed  at  home:  an  erastian  church  has  its  counter- 
part in  an  imperialistic  mission,  — the  war  preacher  steps 
out  in  time  with  the  Maxim  missionary.  Expansion  by 
force  definitely  marks  the  abandonment  of  the  Chris- 
tian ideal  for  the  pagan  so  far  as  the  state  is  concerned  ; 
nor  can  the  missions  which  sanctify  it  by  accepting 
its  patronage  be  credited  with  retaining  the  Christian 
motive  while  thus  following  the  pagan  method.  Just  as 
national  life  comes  to  be  motived  definitely  by  the 
expansionist  theory  and  directed  by  convinced  and  con- 
sistent imperialists,  it  must  necessarily  draw  foreign 
missions  further  and  further  away  from  the  principles 
of  neighborliness  and  renunciation  which  underlie  the 
religion  of  the  cross.  The  chant  of  the  churches  glori- 
ously blends  with  the  refrain  of  the  music  hall,  “ Our 
Empire  is  the  Earth,”25  so  that  the  nation  is  divinely 
united  in  the  faith  that  in  so  small  a world  there  is 
really  no  room  for  anybody  who  does  not  speak  English. 

This  process  of  degeneration  can  be  traced  in  the 
gradual  substitution  of  the  “active”  for  the  “passive” 
virtues,  — of  wisdom,  temperance,  fortitude,  justice,  for 
meekness,  patience,  and  self-sacrifice.  The  sacrificial 
basis  of  life  laid  down  by  Jesus  is  directly  antagonized 
by  the  expansionist  theory  favored  by  the  governing 
classes  to-day;  and  as  the  former  begets  the  personal 
qualities  we  very  inadequately  term  the  “ passive  ” 


294 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


virtues,  while  the  latter  produces  those  we  with  equal 
infelicity  call  “ active,”  its  leaders  have  only  to  shift 
the  accent  from  the  first  to  the  second  in  order  to 
quietly  undo  the  work  of  Jesus  and  bring  a nation 
gradually  back  to  a heathen  type  of  character.  Impe- 
rialism goes  to  wipe  something  off  a slate  — the  Beati- 
tudes. What  has  empire  to  do  with  beatitude  ? What 
has  an  “imperial  race”  to  do  with  lowliness,  longsuffer- 
ing,  and  the  rest  ? How  can  their  proud  “ heritage  of 
empire”  won  by  blood  and  plunder  be  preserved,  much 
less  extended,  by  other  than  the  same  means  ? And  do 
these  methods  magnify  the  Beatitudes  and  make  them 
honorable?  Do  they  not  rather  abrogate  them,  and  sub- 
stitute a set  of  beatitudes  begotten  of  the  pagan  temper 
and  molded  according  to  the  pagan  virtue  ? Blessed  are 
the  proud  ; the  triumphant ; the  aggressive  ; the  mate- 
rialistic ; the  relentless  ; the  worldly-wise  ; the  military 
powers ; the  dominant  races  ; the  admired  and  envied  ; 
the  acclaimed  and  rewarded  : to  them  gold  and  lands, 
crowns  and  sovereignties,  islands,  continents,  and  em- 
pire ! It  is  enough.  Let  all  the  missionaries  say,  Amen. 

To  bring  a railing  accusation  against  the  foreign  pol- 
itics and  the  foreign  missions  which  unite  to  subdue  the 
earth  for  its  good  is,  it  will  be  alleged,  unfair;  seeing 
that  both  imperialistic  politics  and  imperialistic  mis- 
sions are  animated  by  a desire  to  benefit  the  conquered 
and  converted  lands.  Imperialism,  in  short,  is  defended 
on  grounds  of  philanthropy.  This,  however,  is  only 
another  form  of  New  Israelism.  The  New  Israel  is 
just  like  the  old  Israel  in  this,  that  it  can  employ  the 


TO  THE  MISSIONARY 


295 


language  of  piety  to  mask  the  ends  of  business.  We  fear 
the  Greeks  even  when  bringing  gifts  ; and  we  mistrust 
the  Jews  amid  their  blandest  protestations  of  disinter- 
estedness. When  empire  is  spoken  of  as  “the  white 
man’s  burden” — a burden  which  he  generously  and 
unselfishly  takes  up  for  the  sake  of  the  lower  races, 
“ half  devil  and  half  child  ” — all  we  can  say  is  that  we 
heartily  wish  we  could  believe  it  true.  Imperialism, 
according  to  this  transfigured  and  glorified  version,  is 
the  foreign  counterpart  of  those  vast  humanities  which 
have  turned  the  home  land  into  a New  Jerusalem  worthy 
to  dispense,  in  its  turn,  both  law  and  gospel  to  all  the 
earth.  It  is  not  for  lordship  but  service  that  financiers 
and  politicians  unite  to  exploit  the  undeveloped  races ; 
and  we  are  to  believe  it,  if  we  can.  It  is  a mistake  to 
think  that  the  gaudy  glitter  of  empire  is  of  the  essence 
of  imperialism  ; we  are  asked  to  see  it  as  a burden 
unselfishly  carried  by  benevolent  politicians,  a task 
magnanimously  undertaken  by  philanthropic  financiers 
under  the  irresistible  constraint  of  duty,  conscience,  and 
humanity  : to  believe  that,  in  fact,  the  missionary  has 
succeeded  in  lifting  the  entire  imperialistic  business  up 
to  the  level  of  a vast  evangelistic  enterprise,  carried  on 
for  the  clothing  of  the  body  and  the  saving  of  the  soul 
of  heathendom.  To  which  it  is  necessary  to  say  only 
that  the  precise  opposite  is  the  truth : the  average  ex- 
pansionist means  business,  not  philanthropy;  and,  so 
far  from  being  lifted  up  by  the  missionary,  has  suc- 
ceeded in  dragging  the  missionary  down.  This  idealized 
presentation  is,  at  worst,  a low  display  of  that  phari- 
saism  for  which  the  Christian  powers  are  now. famous  ; 


296 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


and,  at  best,  a praiseworthy  attempt  of  the  few  right- 
eous to  fasten  a higher  scheme  upon  the  brute  majority. 
And  all  that  these  high-minded  apologists  succeed  in 
accomplishing  is  to  give  new  garments  to  hypocrisy, 
new  sops  to  conscience,  new  excuses  for  crime,  and 
new  arguments  wherewith  to  silence  the  protests  of 
humanity.  Sir  Galahad  and  St.  Columba  may  try  hard 
to  believe  that  the  bandit  horde  who  have  misled  them 
are  true  knights  of  the  Round  Table,  riding  abroad 
redressing  human  wrong ; that  the  cutthroat  crew  are 
monks  of  Iona  skirting  the  coasts  of  new  worlds  only 
for  the  souls  of  men  : but  the  brandy  down  in  the  hold 
will  undeceive  them,  and  the  Maxim  missionary  reach- 
ing with  a gun  the  heathen  brains  he  could  not  touch 
in  argument  will  convince  them  of  the  error  of  their 
way.  “ The  idea  of  carrying  the  gospel  to  the  Philip- 
pines with  the  aid  of  shot  and  shell  is  not  only  no 
quotation  from  the  gospel,  but  it  distinctly  antagonizes 
the  divine  utterances  which  the  gospel  records  and 
the  divine  spirit  with  which,  from  the  beginning  to  the 
end,  that  gospel  is  inspired;  and  this  bringing  to  them 
the  story  of  the  cross  under  the  cover  of  our  gunboats 
— redemption  in  one  hand  and  shot  in  the  other  — is  an 
infidel  method  of  accomplishing  evangelical  results.”  26 
The  game  is  business,  not  humanitarianism  ; conquest, 
not  conversion  ; lordship,  not  service;  cent-per-cent,  not 
treasure  in  heaven  : “ God  has  added  to  this  empire 
a diamond  field,  a land  whose  harvest  is  pure  gold, 
or  whose  rich  mines  are  of  ruby,  rocks  of  opal.”27 
It  is  not  necessary  to  argue  here  whether  sovereignty 
by  violence  tends  to  righteousness  amongst  either 


TO  THE  MISSIONARY 


297 


conquered  or  conquerors  ; but  only  to  see  that  it  is  pure 
hypocrisy  to  pretend  that  either  statesmen  or  capitalists 
are  actuated  by  the  evangelical  motive,  and  pure  world- 
liness for  the  missionary  to  accept  their  patronage. 

Driven  into  a corner,  the  sincerely  philanthropic  im- 
perialist28 defends  his  cause  by  asserting  that  imperial 
authority  — alone  strong  and  far-reaching  — is  neces- 
sary to  protect  native  races  from  unscrupulous  traders 
and  rapacious  adventurers  who,  without  such  restraint, 
would  descend  to  the  methods  of  the  privateer  and  the 
pirate.  But  what  difference  does  it  make  to  the  savage 
whether  he  is  robbed  by  a government  or  a bagman  ? 
shot  by  a chartered  policeman  or  a soldier  of  the  line  ? 
exploited  by  a capitalist  or  a consul  ? annexed  by  the 
colonial  secretary,  the  shark,  at  home  or  by  the  mis- 
sionary, the  pilot  fish,  abroad  ? Whatever  shreds  of 
moral  responsibility  may  subsist  within  this  embrace 
between  the  spiritual  and  the  temporal  powers,  — the 
preacher  and  the  trader,  the  missionary  and  the  soldier, 
— the  stark,  staring  fact  confronts  us  that  the  compel- 
ling power  is  greed  rather  than  godliness  and  national 
vanity  rather  than  gospel  zeal.  ’T  is  vain  to  argue  that 
a sow’s  ear  is  a silk  purse.  The  debasing  spirit  of  war 
has  turned  our  gospel  into  shame,  and  too  many  of  our 
missionaries  into  buccaneers.  Is  this  the  condemnation 
of  our  missions  ? Say,  rather,  the  damnation  of  war  ! 

Hunted  out  of  every  corner  of  pretense,  only  one 
refuge  of  despair  remains  to  the  obstinate  believer  in 
dominion  by  brute  force,  — a refuge  of  despair  lapsing 
into  blatant  defiance  and  an  atheism  that  outstares  the 
heavens  ; it  is  the  assertion  of  “ manifest  destiny.” 


298 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


Now  the  “ manifest  destiny  ” of  person  or  people,  ac- 
cording to  the  theologies,  might  be  to  either  salvation 
or  destruction,  as  should  be  the  will  of  God.  But  the 
political  and  missionary  expansionism  of  the  day  is  not 
ennobled  by  that  perfect  submission  to  the  will  of 
Allah  which  makes  the  Islamite  so  grand  in  defeat  and 
death,  nor  hallowed  by  the  pathetic  fatalism  of  the 
Scottish  Calvinist  as  he  turns  from  the  grave  of  his 
dead  hope  — “ it  had  to  be  ! ” It  is  more  akin  to  the 
proud  ambition  of  the  Western  Satan  who  would  rather 
“reign  in  hell  than  serve  in  heaven,”  rather  have  em- 
pire as  one  of  the  Great  Powers  than  be  the  lowly 
servant  of  humanity  ; or  to  the  vaulting  pride  of  the 
Eastern  Lucifer  who  rose  upon  the  necks  of  the  infe- 
rior races  saying,  “ I will  ascend  into  heaven,  I will 
exalt  my  throne  above  the  stars  of  God,  I will  ascend 
above  the  heights  of  the  clouds,  I will  be  like  the  Most 
High  ! ” The  essence  of  this  kind  of  destiny  is  not 
submission,  but  defiance  ; not  fatalism,  but  atheism  ; 
the  destiny  of  the  lion  who  roars  against  all  weaker 
creatures  in  despite  of  justice,  till  he,  too,  finds  his  doom 
(as  Satan  his  hell  and  Lucifer  his  Sheol)  in  the  hun- 
ter’s trap ; the  destiny  of  the  tyrant  who  elevates  the 
law  of  the  strongest  into  a decree  and  tramples  down 
every  right  that  is  inconsistent  with  it,  not  directing 
strength  by  conscience,  till  he,  too,  exhausts  the  patience 
of  the  heaven  he  has  defied,  and  is,  in  his  turn,  flung 
down  to  Hades ; nay  (for  even  these  images  may  lend 
an  unmerited  dignity  to  the  sordid  thing)  the  destiny 
of  the  pushing  peddler  who  will  take  no  refusal  but 
beats  down  all  sellers  and  squeezes  up  all  buyers,  till 


TO  THE  MISSIONARY 


299 


the  godless  riches  of  the  extortioner  who  has  permitted 
none  to  live  save  under  the  sufferance  of  his  shadow 
pass  to  juster  owners,  consigning  him  to  the  only  hell 
he  fears  — poverty!  The  appeal  to  the  destinies  is  an 
excuse  for  imperial  conquest  rather  than  an  argument 
for  federated  ministries  ; a pretext  for  revoking  the  Ten 
Commandments  without  observing  the  eleventh  which 
sums  them  all  up  ; an  apology  for  violence  in  politics 
and  coercion  in  religion  ; a plea  for  greatness  as  a 
substitute  for  goodness;  an  attempt  to  justify  the 
abandonment  of  the  way  of  the  cross  by  pleading  the 
inevitable  tendencies  of  trade,  armaments,  politics,  and 
ecclesiasticism.  The  policy  of  the  “ inevitable  ” defi- 
nitely marks  the  renunciation  of  free  will  in  morals, 
is  quickly  followed  by  the  loss  of  freedom  in  politics, 
and  foreshadows  the  doom  of  that  empire  for  whose 
gaudy  sake  were  bartered  all  the  great  moral  realities. 
Politics  and  political  missions  may  perceive  nothing 
save  the  golden  head  and  terrible  form  of  Nebuchad- 
nezzar’s image,  but  ethics  perceives  also  its  feet  of 
clay,  while  religion  sees  gathering  those  moral  forces 
which,  like  the  stone  cut  out  without  hands,  are  ap- 
pointed to  smite  the  image  and  break  it  to  pieces,  till  it 
becomes  like  the  chaff  of  the  summer  threshing  which 
the  wind  carries  away,  and  no  place  is  found  for  it. 

Missionary  imperialism  marks  the  complete  surren- 
der of  organized  Christianity  to  political  ideals,  and  the 
last  stage  in  the  decay  of  faith.  It  is  precisely  when 
faith  is  weakest  that  churches  blossom  out  into  ostenta- 
tious ceremonies  and  vociferous  confessions,  cast  about 
for  political  alliances,  abandon  the  arts  of  moral  suasion 


300 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


for  the  instruments  of  coercion,  and  welter  in  that 
religious  pessimism  which  ceases  to  believe  in  God, 
joined  to  that  political  pessimism  which  has  ceased  to 
believe  in  man.  The  Maxim  missionary  is  the  agent 
of  a church  which  has  lost  faith  in  man,  in  the  slow 
processes  of  peace,  in  the  civilizing  methods  of  the  plow 
and  the  primer  as  contrasted  with  the  swift  solutions  of 
the  sword ; which  has  lost  faith  in  God,  in  the  over- 
ruling Power  who  stands  for  justice  and  truth  ; has  lost 
faith  also  in  righteousness,  to  which  alone  it  was  wont 
to  make  its  appeal,  win  or  lose,  and  which  alone  exalteth 
a nation  ; lost  faith,  too,  in  the  moral  government  of 
the  world,  believing  no  longer  that  the  name  of  the 
Lord  of  Hosts  is  better  than  sword  and  spear  and 
shield,  than  horses  and  chariots,  than  “ the  mountains 
of  prey”;  which  has  lost  the  faith  that  speaks  truth 
though  the  heavens  fall,  — not  only  accepting  but  issu- 
ing invitations  to  subordinate  the  national  conscience 
to  the  national  interest,  to  comply  with  wrong,  and  to 
condone  the  violation  of  treaties  and  pledged  word  for 
the  sake  of  adding  new  provinces  to  the  already  “ vast 
empire,”  as  if  it  were  possible  to  violate  a people’s 
conscience  without  also  fracturing  its  loyalty  or  to  com- 
mit a sin  against  God  without  committing  also  a crime 
against  the  nation  ; which  has  lost  faith  in  the  gospel 
and  fallen  back  upon  the  irrational,  inhuman,  and  anti- 
christian  policy  of  evangelizing  the  world  by  the  gun, 
making  the  Maxim  forerunner  of  the  cross,  killing  men 
because  she  is  bankrupt  of  power  to  convert  them,  abro- 
gating the  eternal  obligations  of  the  gospel  before  the 
latter-day  necessities  of  empire  ; which  has  lost  faith 


TO  THE  MISSIONARY 


301 


in  the  Christ  who  declared  that  a man’s  (or  a nation’s) 
life  consisted  not  in  the  abundance  of  the  things  that 
he  possessed,  and  asked  what  it  would  profit  to  gain  the 
whole  world  and  lose  the  self  — consorting  with  the 
trader  as  His  new  ambassador,  junketing  with  the  new 
evangelists  in  uniform  and  epaulets,  punctuating  the 
sermon  with  the  bayonet,  and,  in  general,  carrying  on 
that  illicit  commerce  with  the  powers  of  this  world  to 
which  both  Old  Testament  prophets  and  New  Testament 
apostles  gave  a very  unpleasant  name  ; which  has  lost 
faith  in  those  moral  forces  alone  relied  on  by  all  the 
missionary  pioneers  from  Paul  to  Livingstone  — the 
beneficence  of  their  work  and  the  transparent  purity  of 
their  motives,  — abiding  the  issue  like  Christians  and 
receiving  the  martyr’s  crown,  under  law  to  Christ  only 
and  protected  only  by  Christ,  considering  that  the  call 
to  perish  was  Christ’s  call,  rejoicing  to  add  their  martyr 
blood  to  the  seed  of  human  progress  ; — a church  which, 
because  it  has  lost  its  faith,  calls  for  a military  escort 
to  protect  life  and  a “punitive  expedition”  to  “exact 
reprisals  ” for  death,  burning  down  villages  and  pound- 
ing women  and  children  to  death  by  gunboats  to  avenge 
the  “ martyrs,”  — sending  the  martyr  courage  after  the 
martyr  spirit,  evidencing  a dastard  unfaith  in  eternal 
life  by  its  carnal  appetite  for  ecclesiastical  expansion 
and  secular  glory. 

It  is  in  this  hideous  demoralization  of  the  “ bride  of 
Christ  ” that  the  war  spirit’s  foulest  nature  may  be  read. 
If  the  church  will  not  arise  and  abolish  war,  war  will 
abolish  the  church.  If  the  missionary  will  not  disown 
the  Maxim,  heathendom  will  reject  the  missionary. 


302 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


While  it  countenances  arms,  the  church  will  never  come 
to  its  own.  The  injury  it  inflicts  upon  the  subject 
races  by  means  of  its  military  ally  reacts  a hundred- 
fold to  its  own  moral  damage  ; and  the  moral  damage 
inflicted  by  war  upon  the  spiritual  agencies  is  the 
measure  of  its  iniquity.  For  the  sake  of  those  heavenly 
powers  which  alone  transform  history  from  a feast 
of  cannibals  to  a fraternal  evolution,  war  must  be 
destroyed. 


REFERENCES 

1.  Missionaries  disclaiming  Military  Protection: 

Wilmot  Brooke  (see  Peace  and  Goodwill,  Vol.  VI,  p.  186). 

As  the  missionaries  enter  the  Moslem  states  under  the  necessity  of 
violating  the  law  of  Islam,  which  forbids  any  one  to  endeavor  to  turn 
Moslems  to  Christ,  they  should  not,  under  any  circumstances,  ask  for 
British  intervention  to  extricate  them  from  the  dangers  which  they  thus 
call  down  upon  themselves.  But  also  for  the  sake  of  the  natives  who 
have  to  be  urged  to  brave  the  wrath  of  man  for  Christ’s  sake,  it  is  neces- 
sary that  the  missionaries  should  themselves  take  the  lead  in  facing 
these  dangers,  and  should  in  every  possible  way  make  it  clear  to  all 
that  they  do  not  desire  to  shelter  themselves,  as  British  subjects,  from 
the  liabilities  and  perils  which  would  attach  to  Christian  converts  from 
Mohammedanism  in  the  Soudan.  They  will,  therefore,  voluntarily  lay 
aside  all  claim  to  protection  as  British  subjects,  and  put  themselves, 
while  outside  British  territory,  under  the  authority  of  the  native  rulers. 

2.  Bishop  of  Manchester,  June  21,  1900,  etc. 

3.  Rev.  Llewellyn  Davies,  September  26,  1900. 

4.  Rev.  A.  Whetnall,  Newcastle  Leader,  February  16,  1900. 

5.  Reader  Harris,  Q.C.,  Reynolds'  Newspaper. 

6.  Pamphlet,  quoted,  Irish  World,  New  York. 

7.  Rt.  Rev.  Soyen-Shaku  on  “Buddhist  Views  of  War,”  Open 
Court,  Chicago,  May,  1904. 

8.  Rev.  Father  Watson,  Newcastle  Daily  Leader. 

9.  Edward  Dennis,  Dundee  Advertiser , March  5,  1904. 

10.  Life  and  Letters,  Vol.  I,  p.  317. 


TO  THE  MISSIONARY 


303 


11.  Rev.  — Richardson,  New  Age,  January  10,  1901. 

12.  New  Age,  January  29,  1903. 

13.  Various  clergymen,  Plain  Truth,  Liverpool,  September, 
904. 

14.  Testimony  of  Lord  Rosmead,  War  against  War,  p.  84. 
“ Civilization  . . . ought  always  to  be  spelt  in  the  South  Seas  as 
‘ syphilization.’  ” 

15.  Archbishop  of  Armagh,  June  3,  1900. 

16.  Review  of  Reviews,  Vol.  XXII,  p.  131. 

17.  Dean  Spence,  New  Age,  December  26,  1901. 

18.  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  Times,  June  1,  1900. 

19.  New  York  Herald,  quoted  in  The  Candlestick,  Bristol,  No.  16. 

Improvised  dance  song,  from  a Cape  newspaper,  supposed  to  be 

heard  by  a traveler  on  the  banks  of  the  Zambesi,  drawn  forth,  we  may 
be  sure,  not  by  merriment,  but  by  grief : 

Englishman  come  — 

He  preachee  God  . . . 

Turn,  turn!  ( piano ) 

Englishman  beat  — 

Englishman  kill  (crescendo)  — 

He  preachee  God — - 

Turn,  turn!  ( fortissimo ). 

20.  Lord  Hugh  Cecil. 

21.  Rev.  Mojola  Agbebi,  Aborigines'  Friend,  London,  May, 
1904. 

22.  Missionary  Persecutions — Testimonies: 

(a)  Sir  E.  Reed,  Japan,  Vol.  I,  p.  296. 

Any  account  of  the  reaction  against  Christianity  in  Japan,  and  of 
the  expulsion  of  Christians  from  it  by  Iyeyasu,  which  omits  from  con- 
sideration the  wrongs  and  persecutions  inflicted  by  the  Christians  them- 
selves upon  the  members  of  other  religious  sects,  must  of  necessity  be 
one-sided,  and  far  from  complete.  These  wrongs  and  persecutions  fed, 
if  they  did  not  light,  the  flames  of  fear  and  hatred  which  drove  Chris- 
tianity from  the  land.  But  it  was  not,  let  it  be  frankly  acknowledged, 
the  Roman  Catholics  alone  who  were  to  blame;  the  Protestant  Dutch 
and  English  [British]  added  abundant  fuel  to  the  fire.  They  stirred  up 
the  Japanese,  as  we  have  seen,  not  merely  to  religious  resistance  of  the 
Romish  missionaries  and  their  work,  but  to  political  resistance  likewise, 
and  to  political  resistance  excited  by  the  worst  of  all  alarms,  that  of  the 
hostile  invasion  of  their  country. 


304 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


(b)  Herbert  Spencer,  Study  of  Sociology,  pp.  2 10-21 1. 

If,  again,  we  compare  critically  the  accounts  of  Cook’s  death,  we 
see  clearly  that  the  Sandwich  Islanders  behaved  amicably  until  they  had 
been  ill-used,  and  had  reason  to  fear  further  ill  usage.  The  experiences 
of  many  other  travelers  similarly  show  us  that  friendly  conduct  on  the 
part  of  uncivilized  races  when  first  visited  is  very  general ; and  that 
their  subsequent  unfriendly  conduct,  when  it  occurs,  is  nothing  but 
retaliation  for  injuries  received  from  the  civilized.  Such  a fact  as  that 
the  natives  of  Queen  Charlotte’s  Island  did  not  attack  Captain  Carte- 
ret’s party  till  after  they  had  received  just  cause  of  offense,  may  be 
taken  as  typical  of  the  histories  of  transactions  between  wild  races  and 
cultivated  races.  When  we  inquire  into  the  case  of  the  missionary 
Williams,  “ the  Martyr  of  Erromanga,”  we  discover  that  his  murder, 
dilated  upon  as  proving  the  wickedness  of  unreclaimed  natures,  was  a 
revenge  for  injuries  previously  suffered  from  wicked  Europeans. 

(c)  Rev.  John  Ross,  D.D.,  Mukden,  Sunday  at  Home,  London, 
November,  1900. 

The  policy  of  Western  governments,  threatening  to  take  possession 
of  the  land,  combined  with  the  action  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church 
all  over  China,  is  alone  responsible  for  the  anti-foreign  rising.  The 
French  Minister  has  lately  secured  for  Catholic  bishops  and  priests  the 
right  to  sit  beside  or  above  the  native  magistrates.  Both  these  elements 
must  change:  foreign  nations  must  renounce  the  unjust  aggression  of 
the  past;  Roman  Catholics  must  no  longer  be  supported  by  Western 
governments  in  insulting  and  dictating  to  Chinese  officials. 

( d ) Rev.  Roland  Allen,  Peking,  New  Age,  December  13,  1900. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  Chinese  believe  that  missionary 
effort,  as  well  as  the  political  action  of  the  Powers  in  China,  bodes  no 
good  for  their  country.  The  stories  of  barbarities  by  foreigners  are 
believed  by  the  Chinese  people,  and  they  are  absolutely  furious  at  the 
interference  of  certain  missionaries  in  lawsuits,  and  so  on.  This  is  at 
the  root  of  the  whole  matter.  It  is  this  that  will  turn  Christianity  in 
China  into  detestation,  and  which  has  led  the  common  people  to  believe 
that  foreign  nations  are  absolutely  destitute  of  any  sense  of  right. 

23.  Missionary  sermon  at  St.  Ann’s,  Kew,  December,  1900. 

24.  Lord  Salisbury,  at  missionary  meeting,  June,  1900. 

25.  War  against  War  in  South  Africa,  p.  42. 

26.  Dr.  C.  H.  Parkhurst,  March,  1900. 

27.  Bishop  of  Truro,  “Twentieth  Century  Address.” 

28.  Review  of  Reviews,  Vol.  XIX,  p.  107. 


IX 

THE  MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR  TO 
THE  TRADER 


Once  you  warred 

For  liberty  against  the  world,  and  won  : 

There  was  the  glory.  Now,  you  fain  would  war 
Because  the  neighbor  prospers  overmuch, — 
Because  there  has  been  silence  half-an-hour, 

Like  Heaven  on  earth,  without  a cannon-shot 
Announcing  Hohenstielers-Schwangauese 
Are  minded  to  disturb  the  jubilee, — 

Because  the  loud  tradition  echoes  faint, 

And  who  knows  but  posterity  may  doubt 
If  the  great  deeds  were  ever  done  at  all, 

Much  less  believe,  were  such  to  do  again, 

So  the  event  would  follow : therefore,  prove 
The  old  power,  at  the  expense  of  somebody  ! 

Browning 


IX 


THE  MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR  TO  THE 
TRADER 

Peace  is  the  true  interest  of  commerce,  and  should 
be  its  aim  and  guiding  policy.  Every  business  part- 
nership should  be  a bureau  of  conciliators,  and  every 
chamber  of  commerce  a peace  society.  To  stimulate 
productive  industries,  secure  effective  distribution,  and 
promote  extensive  consumption  constitute  th'e  natu- 
ral ends  of  trade;  and  they  all  presuppose  conditions 
favorable  to  creation,  to  facility  of  travel,  and  to  the 
increase  of  populations, — i.e.  peace  conditions,  — while 
excluding  those  which  imply  destruction,  dislocation, 
and  the  thinning  out  of  peoples,  — i.e.  conditions  of 
warfare.  The  Napoleonic  gibe  at  the  British  as  “ a 
nation  of  shopkeepers  ” was  finest  compliment ; for  the 
shopkeeper  is  the  type  of  service,  ministry  : he  stands 
for  production,  distribution,  exchange  of  the  arts,  com- 
forts, utilities  of  life ; he  represents  agriculture,  for- 
estry, horticulture,  the  fertilizing  and  adornment  of  the 
earth;  by  him  the  lone  sea  is  populous  with  ships  carry- 
ing wool  and  corn,  timber  and  spices,  travelers,  immi- 
grants and  missionaries,  pictures  and  books  ; thoughts, 
ideas,  religions,  gospels,  civilizations,  by  him  pass  to 
and  fro,  redeeming  the  earth  into  an  Eden  for  man 
and  man  into  an  Eden-dweller  for  the  earth.  Yet  as 
the  corruption  of  the  best  produces  the  worst,  so 

3°7 


3°8 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


amongst  all  those  classes  injuriously  affected  by  the 
war  spirit  none  is  subject  to  more  frightful  demoral- 
ization than  the  trader,  whose  heart  was  searched  by 
Ruskin  in  Unto  this  Last , saying  : “The  fruit  of  jus- 
tice is  sown  in  peace  of  them  that  make  peace  . . . 
peace-creators;  givers  of  calm.  Which  you  cannot  give 
unless  you  first  gain  ; nor  is  this  gain  one  which  will 
follow  assuredly  on  any  course  of  business,  commonly  so 
called.  No  form  of  gain  is  less  probable,  business  being 
. . . essentially  restless — and  probably  contentious; 
— -having  a raven-like  mind  to  the  motion  to  and  fro, 
as  to  the  carrion  food.”  Though  Ruskin  (who  divided 
wars  into  two  classes,  those  for  defense  and  those  for 
dominion)  would  probably  have  included  commercial 
wars  in  the  second  of  his  divisions,  yet  the  full,  strife- 
provoking  possibilities  of  business  had  not  unfolded 
themselves  as  they  have  to  a later  generation.  In  this 
sphere  also  we  observe  the  clash  of  ideals  between  the 
expiring  brute  and  the  crescent  angel  in  the  nature  of 
man.  Multitudes  of  traders  recognize  that  the  true 
interest  of  trade  and  capital  is  in  peace,  and  are  alive 
to  the  higher  aspects  of  commerce ; but  great  numbers 
succumb  to  their  temptation  in  the  wilderness,  make 
haste  to  be  rich,  exploit  rather  than  develop  the  earth, 
and  transform  their  swift-footed,  art-teaching,  wand- 
bearing Mercury  into  a rapacious,  wasting  Mars,  add- 
ing the  extravagances  and  penalties  of  war  to  the 
legitimate  burdens  of  commerce.  It  was  doubtless  this 
danger  signal,  flaring  out  in  the  mists  of  futurity,  that 
filled  the  eye  of  George  Washington,  when,  in  his  fare- 
well address  to  the  American  people,  he  postulated, 


TO  THE  TRADER 


309 


“ The  great  rule  of  conduct  for  us  in  regard  to  foreign 
nations  is,  in  extending  our  commercial  relations,  to 
have  with  them  as  little  political  connection  as  possible.” 

War  is  now  waged  avowedly  for  trade.  Fox  which 
tried  to  circumvent  fox  by  fraud  is  metamorphosed  into 
wolf  which  seeks  to  raven  wolf  by  force.  Swindling 
syndicates  fill  their  coffers  by  draining  at  one  and 
the  same  time  the  purses  of  their  confiding  fellow- 
countrymen  and  the  veins  of  foreign  tribes.  A deep 
tidal  wave  is  sweeping  over  the  civilized  world,  made 
up  of  the  froth  and  fury  that  go  to  float  such  sentiments 
as  that  conquest  is  the  pioneer  of  commerce,  that  trade 
follows  the  flag,  that  the  soldier  must  always  and  every- 
where protect  the  trader,  the  exploiter,  even  the  mis- 
sionary, — the  very  gospel  of  God  leaning  upon  the 
munitions  of  war.  War  for  the  extension  of  trade  or 
to  prevent  its  curtailment  has  become  an  established 
order,  whose  significance  we  may  better  realize  if  trans- 
lated into  its  vulgar  equivalent  — murder  for  gain. 
“We  have  here  the  argument,”  says  Richard  Cobden 
in  his  pamphlet  England,  “ which  has,  immediately  or 
remotely,  decided  us  to  undertake  almost  every  war  in 
which  Great  Britain  has  been  involved  — viz.  the  defense 
of  our  commerce.  And  yet  it  has,  over  and  over  again, 
been  proved  to  the  world  that  violence  and  force  can 
never  prevail  against  the  natural  wants  and  wishes  of 
mankind.”  The  nation  of  shopkeepers  has  blossomed  out 
into  a nation  of  soldiers.  And  herein  — to  know  his 
mind  on  the  subject  once  for  all  — Ruskin  is  justified 
in  his  foreboding  : “ Capital  is  the  head,  or  fountain 
head,  of  wealth  — the  wellhead  of  wealth,  as  the  clouds 


3io 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


are  the  wellheads  of  rain  : but  when  clouds  are  without 
water,  and  only  beget  clouds,  they  issue  in  wrath  at 
last,  instead  of  rain,  and  in  lightning  instead  of  harvest.” 
In  our  day  we  have  seen  the  lightning  strike. 

The  new  military  commerce  is  seen  to  emerge  out  of 
that  raven-like  restlessness  which  has  developed  busi- 
ness on  a vast,  imperial  scale,  catering  for  a world’s 
needs,  for  colonies  and  dependencies  in  every  part  of 
the  world  ; discerning  not  imaginary  golden  fleeces,  as 
in  ancient  myth,  but  most  substantial  gold  mines ; and 
slaying  not  fabulous  wild  beasts  but  veritable  living 
men,  the  unhappy  guardians  of  the  same.  Its  course 
could  be  fully  traced  only  in  the  processes  by  which  the 
hand-crafts  developed  into  mechanical  industrialism  and 
that,  in  turn,  into  capitalism.  The  capitalist  knows  very 
well  that  every  shilling  spent  in  war  is  directly  waste, 
that  stocks  sink  and  credit  is  lowered,  but  he  regards 
this  as  a necessary  investment  of  capital  in  order  to 
reap  a larger  return  from  the  exploitation  of  the  con- 
quered territory.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  — to  quote 
an  American  peace  writer1  — “foreign  investments  are 
enormously  increasing  in  weak  and  poorly  governed 
countries.  Poor  Asiatics  are  supposed  to  be  better 
customers  than  our  own  negroes  and  poor  whites  and 
South  Americans.  Put  this  year’s  naval  budget  into 
Southern  schools,  create  new  wants  and  resources,  and 
we  should  have  immensely  larger  sales  near  home.” 

Modern  industrial  nations  — such  as  Germany,  Amer- 
ica, or  Great  Britain  — depend  decreasingly  on  manu- 
facture, and  increasingly  on  investment,  less  on  crafts 


TO  THE  TRADER 


31 1 

and  home  production,  and  more  on  speculation  and 
foreign  expansion  ; so  that  a nation,  distanced  in  the 
mechanical  arts,  may  get  a new  start  of  the  world  by 
controlling  its  accumulations  of  wealth.  That  is  why 
(to  take  but  one  instance)  a capitalist  could  declare  two 
hundred  and  fifty  millions  of  pounds  sterling  spent  in 
acquiring  the  Transvaal  and  Orange  River  Colonies  to 
be,  from  a speculative  point  of  view,  the  best  invest- 
ment Britain  had  made  or  was  ever  likely  to  make.2 
This,  again,  helps  us  to  understand  the  assertion  that 
“ large  speculative  interests  in  Cuban  bonds  have  long 
had  something  to  do  with  Jingoism.”3  Though  the  manu- 
facturer recedes,  the  foreign  investor  may  advance  ; 
home  industries  may  be  gradually  extinguished  while 
foreign  transactions  steadily  develop.  Let  Great  Britain 
be  an  instance. 

The  commercial  imperialist,4  compelled  to  admit  that 
the  industrial  glory  of  Great  Britain  may  be  departing, 
exults  to  proclaim  that  her  capitalistic  glory  is  only 
beginning  ; her  captains  of  industry,  he  confesses,  may 
no  longer  make  her  the  workshop  of  the  world,  but  her 
capitalists  are  making  her  the  landlord  of  the  world,  so 
that  she  may  still  exclaim,  “ The  world,  the  world  is 
mine!”  Her  superabundant  capital  — the  argument 
proceeds  — may  no  longer  find  profitable  employment 
in  the  fields  and  forests,  mines  and  mills,  of  the  home 
land  ; but  it  flows  over  and  takes  possession  of  the 
carrying  trade  of  the  nations,  of  the  soils,  mines,  rail- 
ways of  countries  beyond  the  seas,  so  that  through  her 
money  lenders  she  gets  other  countries  into  her  clutches, 
laying  the  foundations  of  new  empire  enduringly  on 


312 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


the  solid  basis  of  hard  cash.  She  is  a foolish  mother, 
starving  at  home  that  she  may  be  a spendthrift  abroad. 

The  general  wealth  of  the  United  Kingdom  is  esti- 
mated at  about  twelve  billions  of  pounds  sterling,  of 
which  nearly  a half  is  made  up  of  colonial  and  foreign 
investments,  thus  diverting  into  distant  channels  that 
wealth  and  energy  necessary  to  perfect  vigor  and 
wholesomeness  of  domestic  life.  Selfish  speculation  and 
spendthrift  jingoism  unite  to  push  on  wild-cat  schemes, 
while  sober  men  of  all  parties  stand  aghast  at  the  folly 
which  strains  to  occupy  new  lands,  sink  new  capital, 
squander  accumulated  resources  in  regions  far  away, 
while  the  prairies  of  undeveloped  America,  the  fields 
of  barren  Britain,  and  the  plains  of  neglected  India  cry 
out  for  the  compost  of  new  capital.  It  is  from  this 
raven  habit  of  trade  that  the  new  war  spirit  springs, 
reacting  in  its  turn  upon  the  trader’s  mind  and  pro- 
ducing in  him  a yet  deeper  demoralization.  Modern 
capitalism  is  the  direct  father  of  modern  militarism. 

Mr.  Spencer’s  distinction  between  industrial  and  mil- 
itary civilizations  goes  to  the  root  of  things  ; and  the 
passage  from  the  one  kind  to  the  other  is  capitalism. 
The  decay  of  industrialism  is  coincident  with  the  rise 
of  capitalism,  and  the  meridian  of  capitalism  with  the 
advent  of  militarism.  The  nineteenth  century  closed 
upon  the  first,  and  the  twentieth  century  rose  upon  the 
last.  Imperial  trade  requires  an  imperial  army,  the  ex- 
pansion of  commerce  is  accompanied  by  an  extension  of 
the  mailed  fist.  The  decline  of  the  artisan  is  coincident 
with  the  rise  of  the  soldier  ; the  fighter  must  increase, 


TO  THE  TRADER 


313 


but  the  mechanic,  plowman,  weaver,  must  decrease. 
To  the  far  places  whither  Mercury,  the  trade  deity, 
pioneers  the  way  Mars,  the  war  deity,  is  summoned 
to  follow,  lumbering  with  his  guns  and  impedimenta 
after  the  quick,  raven-winged  feet  of  the  mercantile  god. 
Treaties  of  commerce  are  extorted  from  unwilling  peo- 
ples by  force  of  arms.6 

It  is  necessary  to  follow  the  course  by  which  com- 
mercial imperialism  leads  to  military  imperialism  ; it  is 
the  story  of  the  merchant’s  demoralization,  of  how 
Mars  debauches  Mercury.  A distinguished  American 
divine6  notes  the  advent  of  “a  vulgar  commercialism, 
which  stands  ready  to  exploit  all  the  backward  peoples 
of  the  earth,  and  gladly  helps  forward  that  gigantic 
movement  in  our  modern  world,  which,  under  the  guise 
of  preserving  the  peace  of  the  nations,  always  takes 
care  to  increase  their  military  expenditure.”  Com- 
merce, secure  in  its  consciousness  of  the  army  behind 
it,  forces  expansion,  drags  empire  in  its  train. 

The  producing  and  distributing  agencies,  which  were 
all  for  peace  so  long  as  peace  was  considered  good  for 
trade,  are  now  all  for  that  expansion  which  necessitates 
war;  and  for  the  same  reason.  To  make  money  peace- 
fully at  home,  sending  missionaries  abroad  to  convert 
the  heathen  into  Christians,  was  once  considered  the 
sum  total  of  a Lancashire  cotton  spinner’s  duty  ; which, 
though  not  a very  exalted  one,  is  not  improved  on  by 
the  new  commercial  gospel  which  requires  him  to  send 
out  soldiers  to  convert  the  heathen  into  customers.  A 
peace  principle  rooted  only  in  self-interest  will  erect 
but  feeble  barriers  against  the  tempter.  The  ever 


3M 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


pressing  necessity  of  finding  outlets  for  vast  accumula- 
tions of  wealth,  or  defending  investments  already  made, 
drives  the  capitalistic  nation  into  war  for  new  customers 
or  new  securities.  Here,  there,  everywhere,  it  is  inter- 
national capitalism  that  is  the  danger.  Money  mongers 
of  all  nations  and  all  political  parties  fall  down  before 
the  golden  image  of  Empire,  with  its  promise  of  big 
business  and  full  pockets.  If  the  pushful  trader  and 
the  arrogant  expansionist  require  more  soldiers,  they 
confidently  reckon  on  being  able  to  persuade  a patriotic 
country  to  provide  the  bayonets  necessary  to  push  cot- 
ton upon  Egypt,  opium  upon  China,  brandy  upon  Africa, 
and  empire  upon  all.  The  price  of  the  bayonet  is  the 
profit  of  the  merchandise,  and  must  not  be  grudged. 
It  is  true  that  the  poor  fool  Demos  must  drudge  on  to 
provide  both  the  one  and  the  other  ; but  Issachar  is  a 
strong  ass,  and  has  the  pride  and  glory  of  empire  to 
sustain  him.  It  is  also  true  that  the  public  schools 
must  be  turned  into  recruiting  grounds,  and  the  citi- 
zens into  conscripts  ; but  it  is  “ good  for  trade.”  It  is 
enough.  All  things  are  possible  to  the  sordid  faith  of 
the  money  monger.  Those  numerous  traders  who  hold 
the  ethical  view  of  their  vocation  know  very  well  that 
no  war  can  be  carried  on  except  by  means  of  present 
property  in  the  shape  of  capital,  and  that  this  is  nothing 
less  than  the  world’s  savings  converted  by  war  into 
the  world’s  debts.  They  also  know  that  a war  debt 
transfers  capital  from  individuals  to  governments,  thus 
destroying  the  power  of  exchange  which  is  the  soul  of 
commerce.  They  know  also  that  the  military  and  gov- 
erning classes  would  be  absolutely  powerless  to  carry 


TO  THE  TRADER 


315 


on  war  but  for  the  loans  and  taxes  which  destroy  ex- 
change and  burden  industry  ; and  they  are  beginning 
to  challenge  the  right  of  any  ruling  class  to  annihilate 
present  products  and  mortgage  posterity  for  the  pay- 
ment of  its  imperial,  pride-provoked  wars.  The  time 
may  come  when  these  ethically  motived  traders  will 
increase  to  such  an  extent  as  to  be  able  to  refuse  the 
loans,  disown  the  taxes,  and  repudiate  the  bonds  through 
which  ultimate  poverty  and  ruin  are  purchased  for  an 
illusive  present  boom  in  tea  and  tobacco,  or  by  which 
the  dividends  of  a syndicate  are  swollen  whilst  exploited 
peoples  pay  the  bills.  The  commercial  world  really 
holds  the  governing  world  in  the  hollow  of  its  hand  ; 
can  now  successfully  insist,  if  it  will,  upon  the  passage 
of  treaties  of  arbitration,  upon  the  adoption  of  measures 
for  preserving  the  rights  of  neutrals,  for  maintaining 
neutral  zones  upon  the  high-seas  ; and  can  ultimately 
veto  every  war  upon  the  face  of  the  earth.  In  truth, 
the  hope  of  the  world  may  now  be  said  to  be  trans- 
ferred from  its  missionaries  to  its  traders. 

The  doctrine  that  it  is  permissible  to  make  war  for 
the  sake  of  trade,  killing  those  who  decline  to  become 
purchasers,  is  fit  only  for  a community  of  thugs  ; yet 
it  is  openly  preached  in  the  market  squares  of  Christen- 
dom, and  cruelly  practiced  on  the  plains  of  India,  China, 
Egypt,  Central  Africa,  the  islands  of  the  Spanish  Main, 
— wherever  Christendom’s  trader,  Maxim  missionary,  or 
soldier  has  penetrated.  “Their  sole  idea  is” — wrote 
“Chinese”  Gordon — “an  increased  power  over  China 
for  their  own  trade,  and  for  opening  up  the  country, 
as  they  call  it,  and  any  war  would  be  popular  with 


3*6 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


them  ; so  they  will  egg  on  any  power  to  make  it.” 
Already  is  this  prophecy  fulfilled.  In  Africa,  too,  piti- 
ful and  tragic  proofs  are  offered  of  the  same  demoraliza- 
tion. A consensus  of  opinion  declares  that  the  latest 
white  war  in  that  country  was  “ capitalist  in  origin  and 
purpose,”  7 waged  “ at  the  sinister  mandate  of  a group 
of  Stock-Exchange  speculators  and  gold-field  capital- 
ists”;8 whilst  a high-minded  Colonial  Governor9  de- 
scribed the  position  in  these  terms  : “ The  South 
African  League  forcing  our  hand  . . . exactly  expressed 
what  was  being  done.  This  was  the  real  position.  I 
declined  to  accept  a situation  in  which  irresponsible  and 
concealed  persons  could  practically  dictate  to  the  gov- 
ernment the  line  of  action  which  these  persons  desired 
to  take.  . . . Let  my  chief  at  the  War  Office  tell  me 
what  I am  to  do,  and  I will  do  it,  but  I cannot  be 
dragged  by  syndicates  in  South  Africa,  and  I will  not 
obey  them.  ...  I refused  to  have  anything  to  say  or 
to  do  with  them,  and  they  turned  on  me  the  Press 
which  they  commanded.”  We  have  seen  the  imperial 
trader  at  work.  We  know  how  it  is  done.10  As  soon 
as  individual  adventurers  have  selected  a suitable  terri- 
tory they  proceed  to  get  up  a company,  acquiring  on 
the  one  hand  a concession  from  the  native  monarch 
and  on  the  other  a charter  from  the  government  at 
home.  Thus  armed  both  as  to  the  right  hand  and  the 
left,  they  proceed  to  interpret  their  cunningly  devised 
concession  into  rights  of  ownership  in  lands,  mines,  na- 
tive laborers,  and  of  political  overlordship  on  the  part 
of  their  government,  asserted  by  forts  speedily  run  up 
to  overawe  the  native  chiefs.  Railways  are  next  built 


TO  THE  TRADER 


317 


for  the  purpose  of  selling  cotton,  whisky,  and  Bibles 
to  the  natives ; and  if,  as  is  most  probable,  resenting 
these  insolent  encroachments  they  answer  in  rude  terms 
that  they  want  neither  our  cotton  nor  our  Christianity, 
soldiers  are  run  up  the  railways  to  teach  the  innocent 
natives  a “sharp  lesson.”  Next  a quarrel  is  picked 
with  a neighboring  potentate,  and  an  expedition  organ- 
ized to  teach  him  also  a “ sharp  lesson  and  so  on  to 
the  restless  tribes  on  the  farthest  fringes  of  the  land, 
in  an  unending  series  of  concessions,  railways,  “ sharp 
lessons,”  till  all  the  natives  in  that  part  of  the  world  are 
“reconciled”  to  imperial  rule  and  find  it  expedient  to 
slave  in  the  imperial  mines  in  order  to  earn  the  imperial 
wages  wherewith  to  pay  the  imperial  tax  and  purchase 
the  imperial  cotton  and  whisky.  Mr.  John  Morley,  the 
supreme  ethicist  of  British  politics  to-day,  sums  the 
whole  nefarious  process  thus:  “You  push  into  terri- 
tories where  you  have  no  business  to  be,  and  where 
you  had  promised  not  to  go.  Your  intrusion  provokes 
resentment,  and  resentment  means  resistance.  You  in- 
stantly cry  out  that  the  people  are  rebellious,  in  spite  of 
your  own  assurance  that  you  have  no  intention  of  set- 
ting up  a permanent  sovereignty  over  them.  You  send 
a force  to  stamp  out  the  rebellion.  Having  spread  blood- 
shed, confusion,  and  anarchy,  you  declare,  with  hands 
uplifted  to  the  heavens,  that  moral  reasons  force  you  to 
stay.  These  are  the  five  stages  in  the  Forward  Rake’s 
Progress.”  If  the  two-handed  ruin  — war  and  commerce 
— that  descended  upon  native  races  were  honestly,  how- 
ever foolishly,  intended  to  develop  their  countries,  it 
might  be  possible  to  give  it  reluctant  admission  amongst 


318 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


the  darker  things  of  Providence  ; but  its  object  is  ex- 
ploitation, — the  gain  of  the  trader,  not  the  good  of  the 
barbarian.  To  accomplish  this  end  the  financial  ring 
seizes  upon  the  entire  economic  supply  of  the  country, 
organizes  public  meetings,  sets  agoing  whatever  news- 
papers may  be  necessary,  besides  appointing  its  own 
correspondents  to  papers  at  home,  puts  its  creatures 
into  all  administrative  positions,  coerces  or  cajoles  what- 
ever civil  officials  may  be  sent  out  by  the  home  govern- 
ment, appoints  taxation,  enforces  labor,  pits  the  black 
slave  against  the  white  laborer  in  order  to  squeeze  down 
wages,  carries  out  no  works  of  public  utility,  cares  only 
for  high  profits  and  quick  returns.  It  is  not  even  hon- 
est agriculture  or  mining  the  ring  seeks,  but  dishonest 
stock  manipulation  in  the  interest,  partly  of  the  in- 
vestor at  home  but  chiefly  of  the  company  promoter 
who  exploits  the  home  investor  as  he  exploits  the  bar- 
barian, breaking  the  heart  of  the  first  as  indifferently 
as  he  breaks  the  head  of  the  second.  The  demoniac 
temper  in  which  commercial  imperialism  tramples  down 
every  human  right  and  moral  prerogative  of  native  peo- 
ples evoked  the  pitiful  but  unheeded  appeal  from  a con- 
gress of  Africans  “ that  the  natives  of  Africa  would  no 
longer  be  sacrificed  to  the  greed  of  gold,  their  liberties 
taken  away,  their  family  life  debauched,  their  just  aspi- 
rations suppressed,  and  all  avenues  of  advancement  and 
culture  taken  away  from  them.”  11 

The  essential  danger  of  this  new  and  more  squalid 
class  of  wars  arises  from  the  fact  that  the  trader  is 
not  willing  to  take  the  risks  of  his  own  ventures,  nor 
the  speculator  of  his  own  securities  ; they  insist  on 


TO  THE  TRADER 


319 


committing  an  entire  country  to  their  cause,  identify 
their  commercial  privileges  with  the  rights  of  the  gov- 
ernment, elevate  a permission  to  trade  into  an  obligation 
to  rule,  until  we  get  the  impressive  spectacle  of  the 
once  peaceful  bagman  defying  the  “ four  corners  of  the 
world  in  arms,”  or  shouting  himself  hoarse  on  the  Stock 
Exchange  for  delight  that  another  barbarian  has  been 
faced  with  his  highwayman  dilemma,  Be  my  customer, 
or  die  ! Having  undertaken  to  push  his  business  by  the 
arts  of  war,  the  once  beneficent  trader  is  content  to 
profit  by  all  the  ambushes  and  spyings,  treacheries  and 
briberies,  tricks,  lies,  cruelties,  and  murders  proper  to 
the  pirate  and  the  buccaneer,  and  which  would  make 
him  as  an  honest  trader  suffocate  with  shame.  It  is  the 
knowledge  that  he  carries  the  imperial  armies  and 
navies  in  his  bag  that  demoralizes  the  merchant : were 
he  thrown  entirely  upon  the  arts  and  measures  of  peace 
he  would  be  spared  these  sins. 

Sometimes,  however,  in  the  great  drama  of  imperial- 
ism the  parts  shift  : the  soldier  becomes  the  avant- 
courier  of  the  trader  ; empire  precedes  commerce.  The 
export  trades  unite  with  capital  on  the  basis  of  the 
fallacy  that  “trade  follows  the  flag”  and  call  upon  the 
military  powers  to  promote  commerce  by  conquest. 
Even  were  this  Stock-Exchange  lie  as  true  as  it  is  his- 
torically and  economically  false,  it  would  still  be  con- 
fronted with  the  Sinai  which  forbids  to  murder  for  gain  ; 
but  the  facts  entirely  disprove  this  justifying  shibbo- 
leth of  the  imperialistic  trader.  Many  recent  acquisi- 
tions are  proving  very  drains  upon  the  resources  of  the 


320 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


predatory  nations  of  Europe.  Expansion  has  not  been 
followed  by  corresponding  growth  of  exports.  British 
territory,  for  example,  has  doubled  during  the  last 
twenty  years,  but  imports  and  exports  have  remained 
in  about  the  same  proportion.  British  trade  with  her 
colonies  continues  in  much  the  same  ratio  to  her  trade 
with  foreign  countries.12  Trade  follows  other  lines  of 
development  ; it  does  not  follow  the  flag ; its  laws  are 
economic,  not  military. 

The  doctrine  according  to  which  war  becomes  the 
pioneer  of  trade  is  a heresy  partly  against  economics, 
and  wholly  against  ethics  ; and  though  it  has  hitherto 
produced  its  natural  fruits  of  unrighteousness  chiefly  in 
uncivilized  countries,  it  threatens  to  extend  its  influence 
and  disturb  the  relations  between  the  larger  civilized 
powers.  The  bandit  patriotism,  — that  it  is  permissible 
to  crush  (if  we  can)  a rival  state  for  no  other  reason 
than  to  make  the  commercial  competition  less  keen,  to 
cripple  Germany  in  order  to  make  the  pace  easier  for 
Britain,  — is  already  growing  up  in  the  minds  and  find- 
ing outlet  from  the  pens  of  certain  besotted  mammon- 
ites  of  the  day.  But  “ is  it,”  says  a keen  American 
thinker,13  “to  our  advantage  to  trade  with  nations  im- 
poverished and  penurious,  or  with  nations  opulent  and 
open-handed  ? At  the  beginning  of  a war  there  would 
be  a sudden  pouring  out  of  treasure,  a feverish  squander- 
ing of  the  painful  hoardings  of  years,  and  we  should  get 
a large  share.  But  humanity  lives  from  hand  to  mouth. 
The  savings  of  the  past  would  be  quickly  consumed.  The 
capital  and  labor  that  might  serve  as  fuel  for  the  wealth- 
producing  machinery  of  the  nations  would  be  uselessly 


TO  THE  TRADER 


321 


consumed  in  the  conflagration  of  war,  and  where  would 
trade  be  then  ? ” 

But  the  danger  of  collision  between  the  great  powers 
is  immensely  increased  by  the  trading  doctrine  expressed 
in  the  new  article  of  creed  — “the  open  door.”  So 
greedy  of  gain  have  the  merchant  and  the  trader  be- 
come that  they  are  prepared  to  wage  the  most  tremen- 
dous wars  of  modern  times  for  the  policy  of  the  open 
door.  They  are  not  “ prepared  to  see  Africa  divided 
up  among  other  nations  with  the  consequential  tariff 
arrangements  which  would  follow  ” ; they  would  rather 
add  millions  a year  “to  their  estimates,”  14  thus,  for 
the  sake  , of  a momentary  sprint,  putting  a permanent 
handicap  upon  the  course  of  foreign  trade.  This  new 
dogma  of  imperialistic  commerce  refers  to  such  ter- 
ritories as  one  power  dare  not  annex  for  fear  of  — or 
must  share  along  with  — another  power  ; territories  in 
which  two  or  more  rival  powers  have  succeeded  in 
establishing  commercial  interests,  of  which  each  would 
like  to  have  the  exploitation  single-handed,  but  not 
being  strong  enough  to  shut  the  door  in  the  faces  of 
the  others  by  protective  tariffs,  insists  upon  the  duty 
of  equal  trading  rights  and  risks  fate  in  a demand  for 
the  open  door.  The  dogma  is  also  employed  to  jus- 
tify a command  from  the  greater  powers  that  all  the 
ports  of  an  inferior,  undeveloped  country  shall  be  kept 
open  to  the  trade  of  those  powers  — under  penalties  ; 
assuming  the  right  to  cut  the  throat  of  the  man  who 
refuses  to  trade,  in  the  expectation  of  doing  business 
with  his  surviving  brother.  When  the  merchant  over 
the  way  declines  to  deal  with  us,  or  agrees  to  deal  only 


322 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


on  his  own  terms,  we  claim  the  right  to  walk  into  his 
office  and  blow  his  brains  out.  The  open  door,  desir- 
able as  it  certainly  is  in  itself,  is  thus  made  a gateway 
wide  enough  to  admit  murder  and  robbery  as  well  as 
bales  and  barrels. 

It  is  interesting  to  notice  the  way  Free  Trade  is 
prostituted  to  foreign  war  — how  Manchesterism  itself 
leads  to  militarism.  All  the  Free  Traders  from  Cobden 
to  Gladstone  were  of  opinion  that  free  trade  would 
tend  to  peace  by  creating  a sense  of  solidarity  amongst 
nations ; but  this  hope,  like  so  many  of  the  pioneers’ 
dreams,  is  disappearing.  And  why  ? Because  the  pa- 
cific element  in  Free  Trade,  which  Cobden  postulated,  is 
disappearing.  The  doctrine  stated  by  the  noble  apostle 
of  peace  through  free  trade  was  this  : “ Besides  dictat- 
ing the  disuse  of  warlike  establishments,  free  trade 
arms  its  votaries,  by  its  own  pacific  nature,  in  that 
eternal  truth  — the  more  any  nation  traffics  abroad  upon 
free  and  honest  principles,  the  less  it  will  be  in  danger  of 
wars.”15  Free  Trade  has  to  some  extent  departed  from 
the  spirit  and  principles  of  its  founder,  has  become 
militant,  compulsory,  distrustful  of  itself ; with  the 
result  that  it  works  for  war  in  the  most  astonishing 
way,  is  never  without  scares  and  alarms  and  rumors  of 
war,  and  seems  to  disprove  the  dictum  of  its  apostle 
only  because  it  has  departed  from  his  faith  and  his 
creed  alike.  The  customhouse  is  a portent  only  less 
terrible  than  the  fort ; for  it  sits  under  the  frowning 
shadow  of  embrasured  cannon,  and  drags  the  largest 
navy  in  the  world  all  round  the  seven  seas  after  it. 
The  argument  is  that  Free  Trade  has  never  had  a real 


TO  THE  TRADER 


323 


trial, — for  these  sentences  are  not  directed  against  it 
but  against  the  militarism  which  counteracts  its  benefi- 
cent influence  ; nor  will  it  ever  have  a fair  trial  until 
trade  ceases  to  rely  on  arms,  until  the  merchant  disowns 
compulsion,  and  until  Free  Trade  is  preached  not  as  a 
policy  justifying  force  but  as  an  evangel  worth  suffer- 
ing for.  It  may  also  be  urged  that  the  protectionist  is 
the  original  sinner;  but  the  Free  Trader  is  a faithless 
backslider  — a protectionist' at  heart,  with  selfish  inter- 
est at  the  bottom  of  his  commercial  policy  just  the 
same  as  the  other  — unless  he  is  prepared  to  accept 
all  the  commercial  consequences  of  his  creed.  The 
trader  who  objects  to  tariffs  and  protective  duties  is 
not  only  inconsistent  but  immoral  if,  at  the  same  time, 
he  is  ready  to  extend  commerce  by  bayonets  and  Maxim 
guns,  if  he  thinks  his  country  justified  in  a policy  of 
expansion  merely  because  it  throws  open  the  ports  to 
the  trade  of  the  world.  War  for  religion’s  sake  is  now 
impossible  in  the  Christian  world  ; it  remains  for  the 
commercial  world  to  make  war  for  trade  equally  im- 
possible. “Equal  opportunity”  is  a right  and  fair 
thing ; but  that  little  good  cannot  atone  for  the  greater 
wrong  of  war  — to  say  that  it  can  is  to  boggle  at  an 
economic  heresy  whilst  committing  the  sin  of  murder, 
to  confess  Cobden’s  doctrine  whilst  rejecting  his  spirit, 
to  be  true  to  Cobden’s  creed  whilst  being  false  to  Cob- 
den’s Christ, 

The  battles  of  empire  were  fought  at  one  time  for 
thrones  and  dominion,  which,  if  not  worth  the  moral 
degradation  involved,  were  not  without  a redeeming 


324 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


touch  of  grandeur,  — but  are  now  fought  for  the  squalid 
ends  of  the  huckster,  the  real  struggle,  we  are  told, 
being  for  commercial  supremacy;  the  country  that  can 
open  out  the  widest  fields  for  the  investment  of  its 
capital  coming  out  dux;  so  that,  whereas  the  driving 
power  of  expanding  nations  formerly  consisted  in  their 
love  of  conquest,  their  pride,  their  patriotism,  it  now 
resides  in  their  love  of  money,  their  pockets,  their  eye 
to  business.  For  national  rights  and  liberties  also  men 
have  sometimes  resorted  to  the  arbitrament  of  the 
sword  ; and  though  these  do  not  justify  murder,  they 
are  wholly  noble  when  compared  with  the  powder-and- 
brandy  imperialism  which  tarnishes  the  splendor  of  the 
Victorian  age.  That  capital  is  specifically  the  menace 
is  made  clear  by  an  informing  American  student 16  when 
he  points  out,  amid  much  of  a similar  nature,  that  it  is 
not  enough  to  find  new  markets,  it  is  necessary  also 
to  open  up  fresh  fields  for  investment  of  capital ; for 
“ One  of  the  most  striking  phenomena  of  the  new  eco- 
nomic conditions  is  the  rapidity  with  which  capitaliza- 
tion proceeds,  when  once  a country  has  entered,  to  any 
considerable  extent,  upon  the  career  of  machine  pro- 
duction. ...  So  far  as  these  foreign  investments  are 
safe  and  well  chosen,  . . . the  result  is  much  more  bene- 
ficial to  [a  country’s]  interests  than  if  the  increasing 
savings  of  the  country  were  kept  at  home  to  bid  against 
each  other  in  the  stock  market.  . . . The  necessity  of 
sending  capital  abroad  to  obtain  profitable  returns  is 
the  salient  economic  lesson  of  the  closing  days  of  the 
nineteenth  century.  . . . The  real  opportunity  afforded 
by  colonial  possessions  is  for  the  development  of  the  new 


TO  THE  TRADER 


325 


countries  by  fixed  investments,  whose  slow  completion 
is  the  only  present  means  of  absorbing  saved  capital.  . . . 
Whether  trade  invariably  follows  the  flag  or  not,  the 
real  question  of  the  benefits  of  Australia,  India,  Canada, 
and  Egypt  to  Great  Britain,  and  of  Algeria,  Tunis,  and 
Madagascar  to  France,  relates  to  the  fields  which  have 
been,  and  will  be,  opened  there  for  the  profitable  invest- 
ment of  capital,  and  not  merely  to  the  quantity  of 
finished  goods  laid  down  annually  in  the  export  trade.” 
The  writer  concludes  a ruthless  argument  and  these 
ominous  instances  by  the  patriotic  announcement  that 
“ The  United  States  is  rapidly  approaching  the  con- 
dition of  Great  Britain,  France,  Germany,  and  Belgium, 
where  she  will  be  compelled  to  seek  free  markets  and 
opportunities  for  investment  in  the  undeveloped  coun- 
tries, if  she  is  not  to  be  crowded  to  the  wall  by  the 
efforts  of  the  other  great  civilized  powers”;  finally,  “if 
the  Constitution  stands  in  the  way,  the  Constitution, 
like  other  human  instruments,  should  be  amended.” 
Thus  vanish  the  fraternal  principles  of  Washington  and 
Franklin,  dismissed  as  “glittering  generalities”  by  the 
exigencies  of  modern  capital,  to  come  back  as  Emerson’s 
“blazing  ubiquities”  only  after  many  bloody  experi- 
ments.17 His  case  being  thus  unanswerably  expounded 
by  the  philosopher  and  economist  (for  if  commerce  be 
regarded  merely  as  a system  of  profit  and  loss,  divorced 
from  ethics,  humanity,  international  fraternity,  there  is 
no  reply),  the  capitalist  confesses  his  guilt,  even  glories 
in  it,  and  declares  war  to  be  the  modern  method  of 
wholesale  purchase  : “ If  it  were  true  that  the  war  was 
caused  by  capitalists  or  undertaken  on  behalf  of  the 


326 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


mines,  the  Empire  owes  them  a deep  debt  of  gratitude. 
. . . South  Africa,  after  all,  is  not  a dear  asset  to  the 
Empire  at  the  cost  of  the  present  war.”  18 

The  watchword  is  no  longer  Commonwealth,  but 
simply  Wealth ; and  the  accent  is  shifted  from  the 
development  of  domestic  industries,  social  advancement 
of  peoples,  and  formation  of  noble  character  in  children, 
to  the  exploitation  of  distant  tribes,  the  enormous  accu- 
mulation of  ill-gotten  money,  and  the  power  to  purchase 
manhood,  yes,  and  the  destinies  of  entire  nations. 
National  flags,  formerly  regarded  as  symbols  of  national 
glory,  even  liberty,  are  now  emblems  of  national  trade, 

— the  “greatest  commercial  asset  in  the  world”  a 
famous  British  speculator  19  called  his, — and  an  empire 
comes  to  be  ledgered  with  other  office  effects  : patriot- 
ism is  identified  with  commerce ; the  statesman  is 
merged  in  the  speculator,  the  colonist  in  the  company 
promoter,  and  the  explorer  in  the  commercial  traveler ; 
the  dollar  is  frankly  named  as  the  basis  of  mercantile 
imperialism  and  defended  by  the  bayonet  of  political 
imperialism  ; and  these  two  — the  dollar  and  the  bayonet 

— stand  to  imperial  sovereignty  as  the  great  pillars 
Jachin  and  Boaz  stood  to  Solomon’s  temple.  The  im- 
perial trader  just  quoted  declared  that  modern  wars 
were  not  waged  for  the  amusement  of  royal  families, 
as  in  the  past,  but  for  “practical  business”;  while  a 
Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  bluntly  confessed  that  the 
real  object  of  naval  and  military  expenditure  was  “to 
push  and  promote  our  trade  throughout  the  world.”20 
The  argument  once  ran,  Be  my  subject,  or  I will  kill 
you  ; it  now  runs,  Be  my  customer,  or  I will  kill  you. 


TO  THE  TRADER 


327 


’T  is  thus  that,  “all  in  a later  and  a sadder  age,”  we 
justify  the  Napoleonic  taunt  about  the  shopkeepers. 

Capitalism  thus  stands  revealed  as  the  great  menace 
to  the  peace  of  the  world,  having-  taken  over  from 
royalty  the  criminal  business  on  the  grand,  spectacular 
scale.  It  is  not  now  the  ruler  who  makes  war,  so  much 
as  the  speculator,  the  financier,  the  exploiter  of  uncivi- 
lized peoples  and  undeveloped  lands  ; who  is  giving 
evidence  upon  a gigantic  scale — both  in  Asia  and  Africa 
— that  he  is  prepared  to  push  commerce  throughout 
the  world  at  the  point  of  the  bayonet.  He  blushes  less 
than  formerly,  and  can  now  be  got  to  confess,  or  to 
ironically  describe,  his  country’s  policy  in  terms  such  as 
these  : “ The  talk  about  benevolent  assimilation  is  cant. 
. . . We  want  the  Philippines.  The  islands  are  enormously 
rich.  But  unfortunately  they  are  infested  by  Filipinos. 
There  are  many  millions  of  them,  and  it  is  to  be  feared 
that  their  extinction  will  be  slow.  The  development  of 
the  islands  cannot  be  successfully  done  while  the  Fili- 
pinos are  there.  Therefore,  the  more  of  them  killed 
the  better.”21  The  money  lord  has  taken  the  place  of 
the  landlord,  controlling  the  powers  of  war  and  peace, 
bestriding  the  narrow  seas  as  the  modern  Colossus,  — 
one  foot  planted  on  the  neck  of  the  proletariat  at  home, 
the  other  on  the  necks  of  the  primitive  races  abroad. 

The  power  of  international  finance  has  swelled  to 
vast  proportions  since  the  author  of  Rob  Roy  set  down 
this  dialogue  between  the  ingenuous  Frank  Osbaldis- 
tone  and  the  initiated  Bailie  Nicol  Jarvie  : “ It  is  very 
singular  that  the  mercantile  transactions  of  London 


328 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


citizens  should  become  involved  with  revolutions  and 
rebellions.”  “Not  at  a’,  man  — not  at  a’;  that’s  a’ 
your  silly  prejudications.  I read  whiles  in  the  lang 
dark  nights,  and  I hae  read  in  Baker’s  Chronicle  that 
the  merchants  o’  London  could  gar  the  Bank  of  Genoa 
break  their  promise  to  advance  a mighty  sum  to  the 
King  o’  Spain,  whereby  the  sailing  of  the  Grand  Span- 
ish Armada  was  put  aff  for  a haill  year — What  think 
you  of  that,  sir?”  “That  the  merchants  did  their 
country  golden  service,  which  ought  to  be  honorably 
remembered  in  our  histories.”  “I  think  sae  too.” 

The  twentieth  century  has  risen  upon  a commercial- 
ism so  vast  and  influential  that  it  can  organize  wars  as 
part  of  its  office  work,  rig  governments  as  well  as  mar- 
kets, and  set  in  motion  the  fleets  and  armies  of  the 
mightiest  empire  the  world  has  ever  seen.  It  finan- 
ces states,  which,  in  their  turn,  tax  the  people  to  pay 
interest,  and  employ  soldiers  to  force  the  taxes  out  of 
them.  If  the  patriotic  people  revolt  under  a national 
leader  and  in  a great  national  movement,  imperial  fleets 
and  armies  will  be  sent  to  bombard  their  capitals  to 
compel  them  to  keep  their  obligations,  — that  is,  to 
pay  the  tax  interest  to  the  swollen  Shylocks  who  are 
as  gods  to  the  petty  Shakespearean  variety.  If  they 
desire  a trade  monopoly,  they  coerce  their  government 
into  hostilities  against  a petty  power  that  distances 
them,  and  secure  the  trading  by  securing  the  country. 
“Everywhere,”  says  Sir  Thomas  More,  “I  perceive  a 
certain  conspiracy  of  rich  men  seeking  their  private 
advantage  under  the  name  and  pretext  of  the  common- 
weal.” 


TO  THE  TRADER 


329 


If  imperialism  were  the  expression  of  the  free  will 
and  self-directing  energy  of  a people,  it  would  at  least 
be  entitled  to  whatever  respect  was  due  to  wrong  of 
the  grand,  imposing  kind  ; but  it  is  entitled  only  to 
contempt  when  it  is  seen  to  be  the  creature  of  foreign 
investment,  yoked  and  harnessed  to  the  yellow  chariot 
of  capitalism.  Statesmen  are  but  the  tools  of  the  mas- 
ters of  finance,  and  politicians  merely  the  puppets  of 
the  generals  of  capital.  “Moneybags  ” controls  senates 
nominally  free  ; and  the  plutocrat  buys  the  politician 
like  other  merchandise.  There  is  hardly  a national 
leader,  whether  of  Lords  or  Commons,  but  falls  before 
the  mighty  thaumaturgist  of  finance ; hardly  a cabinet 
or  a legislature  but  is  organized  and  maneuvered  by 
the  millionaire  magician.  Armies  are  marshaled  by  the 
same  magic  baton  ; and  as  the  devoted  bands  march 
forth  to  battle  the  cry  is  no  longer,  “Hail,  Caesar!” 
but  “Hail,  Croesus,  those  about  to  die  salute  thee!” 
As  workers  they  live  to  make  Croesus  rich ; then,  as 
fighters,  die  to  make  him  richer.  He  first  gets  on 
their  backs  and  governs  them  ; then  puts  his  hands  in 
their  pockets  and  taxes  them  ; next  claps  bayonets  into 
their  fists  and  kills  them  ; then  gets  their  taxpaying 
relations  to  bury  them ; afterwards  congratulates  them 
on  having  died  for  their  country  ; but  first,  last,  and 
all  the  time  takes  care  that  all  they  shall  get  of  their 
country  is  the  necessary  six  feet  by  two.  “The  middle 
and  industrious  classes  . . . can  have  no  interest  apart 
from  the  preservation  of  peace.  The  honors,  the  fame, 
the  emoluments  of  war  belong  not  to  them ; the  battle 
plain  is  the  harvest  field  of  the  aristocracy,  watered 


33° 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


with  the  blood  of  the  people.”22  Securely  propped  by 
parliament  on  the  right,  the  church  on  the  left,  and 
with  the  army  in  front,  he  marches  forward  on  his  con- 
quering way.  Kingdoms  lie  in  the  hollow  of  his  hand  ; 
countries  are  his  stakes  and  continents  his  counters  ; 
and  his  huge  gambles  in  material  things  are  buoyed  up 
upon  the  immaterial  waves  of  national  selfishness  and 
national  sentiment,  in  which  also  he  makes  enormous 
and  successful  speculation.  The  persuasive  power  of 
his  world-wide  newspaper  press  is  brought  to  bear  upon 
the  people,  inviting  them  to  “ consider  the  immense 
value  of  the  states  just  acquired,  when  they  cannot  but 
come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  money  expended  in  the 
war  ($1,200,000,000)  is  of  minor  importance,”  23  for  it 
will  “ bring  us  great  reward,  and  great  gain  in  return 
for  the  money  we  had  lost.” 24  Thus  Ahab  forever 
seduces  Demos  to  consent  to  the  murder  of  Naboth  ; 
but  Ahab  takes  the  vineyard  every  time. 

Capitalism  has  power  to  rope  in  every  selfish  party 
of  a nation.  The  commercial  and  military  classes  can, 
as  we  have  seen,  go  but  one  way;  shipbuilding,  gun- 
making, and  allied  trades  stand  to  gain  by  a policy  of 
aggression  ; the  middle  and  upper  classes  are  tempted 
by  the  prospect  of  outlets  for  their  sons  and  superflu- 
ous dependents;  while  the  investing  public,  with  their 
vast  ramifications,  rejoice  to  see  the  arms  of  the  state 
enlisted  in  defense  of  their  private  fortunes  : and  all 
these  — not  its  accidental  humanitarianism  — consti- 
tute the  driving  forces  of  imperialism.  A gallant  officer 
puts  the  matter  in  a nutshell  when  he  says  : “ We  want 
the  colonies  to  produce  the  whole  of  the  corn  and  raw 


TO  THE  TRADER 


331 


materials  we  require,  and  let  the  rest  of  the  world  go 
to  the  devil.”25  So  we  must  take  care  to  get  plenty  of 
colonies. 

The  motive  in  the  heart  is  selfishness,  but  the  appeal 
in  the  mouth  is,  frequently,  to  sentiment, — the  senti- 
ment expressed  in  such  words  as  “ country,”  “ empire,” 
“patriotism,”  — by  which  pretense  some  of  the  worthy 
are  drawn  to  the  side  of  Mammon,  which  has  power 
to  deceive  the  very  elect.  Capitalism  can  exploit  the 
higher  forces  of  mind  as  cunningly  as  the  lower  provi- 
sions of  nature  ; by  brutal  bribery  of  the  lower  elements 
and  skillful  harping  upon  the  higher  is  able  to  enlist  the 
moral  sense  of  a people  on  the  side  of  its  quarrel  and 
their  military  forces  to  fight  its  battles.  This  explains 
the  existence  of  a few  strands  of  purer  sentiment  wound 
up  in  the  coarse  lasso  with  which  the  annexationist 
proceeds  to  his  task,  — such  as  the  desires  for  political 
reform,  extension  of  civilization,  protection  of  native 
races,  abolition  of  slavery,  development  of  missionary 
enterprise ; but  these  high  things  are  all  compelled 
to  follow  in  the  train  of  the  ruling  forces  which  make 
for  financial  profit  and  territorial  aggrandizement. 
Those  higher  elements  — congenial  themes  of  banjo 
bards  and  platform  platitudinarians  — are  expected  to 
redeem  the  imperialistic  movement  from  utter  reproba- 
tion, to  satisfy  public  conscience,  to  give  a pleasing 
sense  of  moral  elevation  : but  the  driving  power  is  in 
the  lower  elements  of  greed  and  pride  ; the  practical 
work  of  expansion  is  left  to  the  financier,  company  pro- 
moter, stock  manipulator,  and,  when  all  things  are 
ready,  the  soldier.  This  is  the  depth  of  baseness 


332 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


reached  by  the  owners  of  imperialistic  finance,  — to  work 
upon  a people’s  noblest  instincts  for  most  sordid  ends, 
to  stir  the  popular  mind  with  indignation  by  stories  of 
wrong  forged  in  the  offices  of  their  prostitute  press,  to 
play  Iago  to  deluded  Othello,  — knowing  that  when  his 
anger  is  well  up  miserable  Othello’s  brutality  will 
wake  up  with  it,  — and  prepare  him  for  any  barbarity 
that  war  can  necessitate  or  empire  justify.  Greed  play- 
ing upon  brutality,  — that  is  the  process  by  which  the 
war  devil  is  roused  in  the  breast  of  a democracy,  in- 
flaming national  vanity,  exciting  brutal  lust  of  domin- 
ion, stirring  up  blind  frenzies  of  patriotism,  until,  like 
Mark  Antony,  he  can  safely  retire  from  the  scene, 
smiling  complacently  to  himself,  “Mischief,  thou  art 
afoot!” 

By  the  very  conditions  of  its  existence  international 
capitalism  has  no  country  — save  El  Dorado;  no  king 
— save  Mammon;  no  politics  — save  business;  and  is 
the  veriest  hypocrite  when  it  sets  up  these  parrot  cries. 
Mammon  worshipers  of  all  nations  forswear  every  alle- 
giance whensoever  and  in  whatsoever  part  of  the  world 
it  clashes  with  their  allegiance  to  capital  and  interest ; 
that  heterogeneous  and  polyglot  crowd  of  millionaires, 
exploiters,  money  lenders,  gamblers  — to  the  outer- 
most fringe  of  the  obsequious  and  emulous  throng  of 
flunkies  and  park  loungers  who  attend  them,  or  the 
adoring  circles  of  political  women  who  worship  them  — 
being  moved  by  no  other  consideration  than  profit  and 
loss.  By  transference  of  its  investments  from  native 
to  foreign  countries  capitalism  ceases  to  be  national 
and  becomes  cosmopolitan,  without,  on  that  account, 


TO  THE  TRADER 


333 


becoming  fraternal  — any  more  than  the  roving  pirate 
becomes  fraternal  because,  in  a cosmopolitan  kind  of 
way,  he  preys  upon  all.26  So  far  from  conducing  to  the 
union  of  mankind,  this  bloated  order  of  capitalism  has 
hitherto  produced  little  but  division  and  bloodshed; 
and  there  seems  just  as  much  likelihood  of  converting 
the  pirate  from  his  cosmopolitan  robbery  to  neighborly 
cooperation  as  of  turning  the  international  capitalist 
from  his  selfish  exploitation  of  the  world  to  a fraternal 
development  of  humanity.  If  international  capitalism 
were  an  expansion  of  the  old  national  sentiment  into  a 
cosmopolitan  one,  there  would  be  hope  that  the  higher 
elements  would  overcome  the  lower ; but  it  is  abso- 
lutely unaffected  by  any  sentiment  of  race  or  nation- 
ality, merely  substituting  a mercenary  for  a patriotic 
motive,  and  turning  the  political  formula  “the  greatest 
good  of  the  greatest  number  ” into  the  trader’s  axiom 
“the  greatest  number  — number  one!” 

So  far  from  obeying  patriotic  impulse,  international 
capitalism  will  exploit  with  equal  cheerfulness  both  the 
nation  it  has  cajoled  into  a declaration  of  war  and  that 
which  it  has  goaded  into  accepting  the  challenge.  And 
Rebecca  of  Ivanhoe  shall  set  forth  the  reason  : “ With- 
out the  aid  of  our  wealth,  they  could  neither  furnish 
forth  their  hosts  in  war,  nor  their  triumphs  in  peace  ; 
and  the  gold  which  we  lend  them  returns  with  increase 
to  our  coffers.”  Amongst  great  nations  all  war  is 
waged  by  borrowed  money;-  the  capitalist  lends  the 
“ sinews  of  war”  — ominous  word!  — and  for  the  sake 
of  good  investment  is  ready  to  foment  quarrels  in  every 
part  of  the  world.  The  politicians  declare  war,  the 


334 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


capitalists  finance  it,  and  the  people  pay  for  it.  “ All 
unjust  wars  being  supportable,  if  not  by  pillage  of  the 
enemy,  only  by  loans  from  capitalists,  these  loans  are 
repaid  by  subsequent  taxation  of  the  people,  who  ap- 
pear to  have  no  will  in  the  matter,  the  capitalists’  will 
being  the  primary  root  of  the  war ; but  its  real  root  is 
the  covetousness  of  the  whole  nation,  rendering  it 
incapable  of  faith,  frankness,  or  justice  and  bringing 
about,  therefore,  in  due  time,  his  own  separate  loss 
and  punishment  to  each  person.” 27  So  we  get  this 
last  worst  attribute  of  syndicated  capitalism,  — that, 
for  the  sake  of  large  investments  with  government 
securities,  it  busies  itself  in  getting  up  wars  against 
native  races  or  between  foolish  peoples,  the  misery 
counting  nothing,  the  widows  and  orphans  nothing,  the 
cruelty  and  demoralization  nothing,  — nothing  the  heart- 
breaks, madnesses,  spiritual  desolations,  atheisms,  hells. 
Patriotism,  nationality,  fraternity,  — these  are  the  stops 
pulled  out  by  a militant  commercialism  that  would  play 
on  the  mighty  organ  of  public  sentiment ; but  itself 
loves  them  not,  cares  for  none  of  them  : confesses  by 
the  mouth  of  one  of  its  apostles,28  “ We  are  all  too  hell- 
ish rich  to  care  anything  about  your  morality,”  declares 
by  the  lips  of  a second  that  “morality  is  off  the  slate,” 
and  through  a third  gives  judgment  in  the  original 
and  striking  apothegm,  “righteousness  be  damned!”29 
A picturesque  member30  of  the  fighting — not  this  time 
of  the  preaching  — trade  -has  enrolled  himself  amongst 
the  prophets,  and  lifts  up  his  voice  to  bear  testimony 
that : “ In  the  motherland  the  corruption  of  money 
has  wrought  fearful  havoc  in  the  ranks  of  society.  In 


TO  THE  TRADER 


335 


the  United  States  there  are  ominous  mutterings  of  the 
coming  storm.  The  plutocrat  is  gaining  power  each 
day  on  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic,  and  the  democrat  is 
likely  to  be  crushed  under  the  heel  of  a worse  tyrant 
than  any  king  who  wore  the  purple,  or  any  ecclesiastical 
dignitary  who  set  up  claims  to  temporal  power.  . . . 
This  is  the  danger  which  menaces  the  Anglo-Saxon 
race.”  Let  it  be  granted  that  the  majority  of  capital- 
ists are  motived  by  higher  ideals,  that  much  capital  is 
pacific  in  its  aim  and  direction,  yet  an  impartial  examina- 
tion of  the  economic  theorizings  and  national  develop- 
ments of  our  time  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  capitalzkzzz, 
— the  massing  of  capital  into  syndicates,  corporations, 
chartered  companies,  and  international  exploitation 
schemes,  — as  we  know  it  to-day,  as  we  have  seen  it 
recently  at  work,  is  the  absolute  incarnation  of  the 
invisible,  diabolic  powers,- — having  neither  a soul  to  be 
saved  nor  a body  to  be  burned ; the  supreme  instance 
of  that  which  a sacred  penman  describes  as  “ with- 
out natural  affection,  implacable,  unmerciful,”  having 
neither  bowels  of  compassion  nor  conscience  of  wrong; 
probably  the  most  absolutely  dehumanized,  miscreated 
and  unnatural  abortion  that  has  hitherto  cursed  and 
afflicted  mankind.  And  it  rules  the  world. 

All  these  facts  and  symptoms  declare  with  an  em- 
phasis the  age  cannot  ignore  that  capitalism  is  the 
enemy,  — the  enemy  which  has  to  be  fought  with  every 
weapon  in  the  armory  of  moral  suasion,  mental  en- 
lightenment, humane  dealing,  and  the  commercial  con- 
science. All  the  illiberal  and  reactionary  forces  which 


336 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


have  been  gathering  head  in  Europe  and  America  these 
fifty  years  have  been  seen  to  focus  themselves  in  the 
plains  of  Asia  and  Africa,  and  now  stand  revealed  as 
the  latter-day  incarnation  of  “ the  least  erected  spirit 
that  fell,”  the  true  “abomination  of  desolation  ” stand- 
ing in  the  holy  place  of  the  opening  century.  The 
twentieth  century  confronts  a mightier  and  wickeder 
confederacy  of  forces  — more  squalid  in  its  inner  na- 
ture but  more  imposing  in  its  outward  show  — than 
any  that  has  hitherto  defied  the  moral  sense  of  man. 
It  is  not  militarism  the  century  is  called  upon  to  fight, 
nor  expansionism  ; but  capitalism,  which,  like  a satanic 
charioteer,  yokes  these  to  his  car,  raising  in  his  furious 
career  a cyclic  storm  of  reactions,  obscurantisms,  des- 
potisms, immoralities,  glittering  illusions  and  dazzling 
shows  proper  to  the  “ Prince  o’  the  Power  o’  the  Air,” 
tempting  the  nations  to  their  doom.  Into  what  ocean 
depths  the  human  race  may  be  dragged  by  the  weird 
and  shapeless  Kraken  that  has  fastened  upon  its  limbs  — 
happily  not  yet  upon  its  vitals  — it  is  impossible  to 
measure  ; neither  its  titanic  sufferings  and  struggles 
ere  it  deliver  itself.  If  the  political  tyrants  of  earlier 
days,  from  Nimrod  to  Napoleon,  chastised  mankind 
with  whips,  the  new  plutocratic  tyrants  will  chastise 
them  with  scorpions ; will  be  as  Rehoboam  was  to 
Solomon  — their  little  finger  thicker  than  the  others’ 
loins. 

The  battle  is  between  commerce  on  the  grand,  im- 
perialistic scale  and  liberty.  It  is  finance  against  free- 
dom the  world  over.  All  the  “ interests  ” that  used  to 
play  against  each  other,  holding  each  other  in  check, 


TO  THE  TRADER 


337 


have  now  drawn  together  under  the  headship  of  Mam- 
mon ; and  mankind  have  nothing  to  oppose  to  them  but 
the  naked  forces  of  morality.  Not  in  the  past’s  worst 
days,  whether  against  mitered  priest  or  crowned  king, 
did  fight  so  tremendous  await  the  forces  of  righteous- 
ness. Church,  press,  throne,  legislature,  — all  are  now 
enlisted  on  the  side  of  Mammon  and  Mars.  All  polit- 
ical parties,  all  industrial  and  trading  combinations, 
unite  on  the  war  policy  of  the  hour ; for  war  means 
power  to  the  “interests,”  paralysis  to  liberty  and  de- 
mocracy. Every  kind  of  domestic  improvement  must 
wait  on  foreign  conquest ; soldiers  must  be  had,  by  con- 
scription and  compulsory  service  if  necessary  ; boys  must 
be  drilled  in  public  schools  and  churches ; voters  must 
be  reduced  to  fighters,  and  citizens  to  ciphers  : and 
all  in  order  that  finance  may  trample,  first  upon  the 
rights  of  peoples  abroad,  and  then  upon  the  home  rights 
of  those  it  sent  abroad  to  fight  its  battles.  It  is  pluto- 
crat against  democrat  the  world  over.  With  what  new 
weapons  will  righteousness  fight  the  good  fight  ? What 
new  embodiments  will  she  assume  ? The  century  opened 
upon  the  spectacle  of  a small  but  indomitable  people 
resisting  the  enemy  of  the  human  race  even  unto  blood, 
opposing  to  the  misshapen  monster  capitalism  the 
simple,  unsophisticated  powers  of  manhood  and  the 
primitive  occupations  ; as  if  the  Providence  that  rules 
the  destinies  intended  to  show  mankind  by  a terrible 
object  lesson  the  enemy  that  has  to  be  fought,  — that 
must  be  fought,  however,  only  with  the  weapons  of 
enlightenment,  education,  moral  culture,  commercial 
integrity,  and  the  reform  of  religion. 


338 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


The  battle  is  between  business  and  morals.  The  real 
significance  of  the  war  with  which  the  century  opened 
is  that  the  greater  war  — the  holy  war — between  trade 
and  ethics  has  commenced  ; and,  though  it  has  opened 
grossly  with  material  weapons,  must  be  fought  out  with 
spiritual  weapons.  It  cannot  be  doubted  that  the  higher 
elements  in  commerce  and  its  best  representatives 
will  be  found  more  and  more  decisively  on  the  side  of 
an  ethical  interpretation  of  their  functions ; that  they 
will  use  their  comprehensive  influence  through  cham- 
bers of  commerce,  boards  of  trade,  and  similar  agencies 
to  effect  treaties  of  arbitration,  secure  zones  of  peace 
on  the  high  seas,  placate  angry  statesmen,  and  con- 
vince the  democracies  of  the  world  that  the  world’s 
interest  is  peace.  The  very  purpose  of  a chamber  of 
commerce  is  to  organize  the  trade  and  industry  of 
mankind,  and  by  doing  so  to  weave  bonds  of  interde- 
pendence and  mutual  help.  The  rupture  between  the 
ethical  sense  and  the  deadening  power  of  gold  has  at 
last  declared  itself,  and  will  go  on  widening  till  all  men 
are  compelled  to  choose  whom  they  will  serve.  Con- 
science has  at  last  taken  the  alarm  and  commenced 
that  struggle  against  a diseased  commercialism  which 
is  to  determine  the  future  of  religion  and  politics : 
whether  religion  is  to  be  mechanical  and  worldly,  or 
spiritual  and  ethical  ; whether  politics  is  to  be  free  and 
social,  or  oligarchical  and  governmental ; whether  inter- 
national trade  is  to  become  a blood-sucking  vampire,  or 
a white-winged  angel ; whether  commerce  is  to  open 
upon  the  peoples  of  the  earth  a Pandora’s  box  of 
plagues  and  curses,  or  to  pour  upon,  a smiling  world 


TO  THE  TRADER 


339 


its  cornucopia  of  fruits,  flowers,  products  of  love’s 
labor  that  therefore  is  not  lost,  — so  at  last  to  realize 
the  vision  of  an  ancient  poet  when  “ the  wilderness  and 
the  solitary  place  shall  be  glad  for  them,  and  the  desert 
shall  rejoice  and  blossom  as  the  rose.”31 

The  battle  is  between  selfishness  and  brotherhood, 
— Self  incarnate  in  Empire,  and  Fraternity  whose  sub- 
lime ideal  is  expressed  in  the  homely  live  and  let  live  or 
the  divine  whatsoever  ye  would  that  men  should  do  to  you , 
do  ye  even  so  to  them  ; Self  on  a scale  so  colossal  and  in 
a garb  so  glittering  as  to  beggar  precedent,  and  Frater- 
nity with  nothing  but  the  old  moral  appeals,  the  drab 
moralities  that  glisten  only  to  the  eye  of  faith.  The 
object  is  abolition  of  every  system  of  protectionism, 
exclusion,  exploitation  ; and  establishment  of  inter- 
national trade  relations,  human  solidarity,  and  equal 
rights  of  individuals  and  races.  The  struggle  is  greater 
than  between  two  divergent  economic  theories;  it  goes 
deeper  than  economics,  piercing  even  to  the  dividing 
asunder  of  the  joints  and  marrow  and  of  the  soul  and 
spirit,  and  proving  a discerner  of  the  very  thoughts  and 
intents  of  the  heart.  It  is  a struggle  between  two  con- 
flicting habits  of  mind,  two  irreconcilable  spirits  within 
man  ; between  selfishness  and  altruism,  exclusiveness 
and  universalism,  materialism  and  religion.  In  this 
struggle  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  the  multitude  of 
traders  will  come  over  to  the  side  of  the  angels.  Com- 
merce is  being  transformed  into  a missionary  for  peace, 
and  the  process  is  being  hastened  by  the  very  ugliness 
of  those  forms  of  capitalism  it  has  been  the  purpose  of 
these  pages  to  describe.  For  trade  is  not  in  itself  a 


340 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


cause  of  disunion  between  nations,  but  only  false  notions 
about  trade.  And  the  associations  of  business  men  are 
setting  themselves  to  teach  true  doctrines  about  busi- 
ness, and  to  counteract  the  specious  fallacies  of  the 
politicians  and  the  soldiers.  True  ideas  move  the  world  ; 
and  it  is  not  too  optimistic  to  believe  that  the  mer- 
chants of  the  civilized  world  are  at  last  preparing  to 
back  with  their  conquering  influence  the  idealists  in 
pulpit,  poem,  and  press.  The  merchant  is  by  his  very 
office  a philanthropist  : he  brings  the  farmer’s  harvest 
to  feed  the  hungry,  the  manufacturer’s  web  to  clothe 
the  naked,  the  products  of  quarrier  and  forester  to 
house  the  homeless,  the  books  of  the  writer  to  educate 
the  ignorant,  the  instruments  of  the  musician  to  cheer 
the  sad,  the  pictures  of  the  artist  to  adorn  both  hall 
and  cottage  ; and  to  the  discharge  of  these  great  offices 
he  brings  a trained  intelligence,  a liberal  outlook,  a 
wide  capacity,  a comprehensive  grasp,  a quick  under- 
standing of  circumstances,  a sympathetic  appreciation 
of  other  interests,  a character  for  faithfulness  and  integ- 
rity which  unite  to  make  his  demand  for  justice  and 
mercy  irresistible.  The  commercial  world  could  not 
stand  unless  its  citizens  had  a higher  reputation  for 
sincerity  and  truth  and  honor  than  it  is  possible  to 
gather  from  the  foul  pages  of  diplomacy  and  politics ; 
so  that  it  is  with  honor  in  his  right  hand  and  human- 
ity in  his  left  the  merchant  moves  forward  to  the 
persuasion  of  the  world.  International  commerce  is 
evolving  an  international  conscience.  Interdependence 
in  material  things  is  rising  up  to  interdependence  in 
things  humane  and  spiritual.  The  world’s  interest 


TO  THE  TRADER 


341 


is  one,  because  the  world’s  soul  is  one.  The  fraternal 
spirit  of  commerce  is  destined  gradually  to  drive  back 
the  barbaric  spirit  of  war ; and  that  destroying  angel, 
the  soldier,  to  yield  place  to  the  ministering  angel,  the 
merchant.  It  is  not  so  ? — is  far  indeed  from  being  so  ? 
That  is  just  the  argument.  Reliance  on  force  is  what 
chiefly  prevents  it  from  being  so.  The  demoralization  of 
the  trader  furnishes  the  modern  world  with  the  crown- 
ing and  convincing  proof  that  war  must  be  abolished. 


REFERENCES 

1 . Lucia  Ames  Mead,  The  Primer  of  Peace. 

2.  Carl  Hanan,  Daily  Chronicle,  January  1 6,  1903. 

3.  Times , April  7,  1898. 

4.  “ Ritortus,”  in  Contemporary  Review , London,  July,  1899. 

5.  Commercial  Treaties  extorted  by  Force  (Thorpe’s 
History  of  Japan,  pp.  173,  193): 

In  July,  1858,  not  only  American  but  Russian  men  of  war  arrived  at 
Yokohama,  to  be  speedily  followed  by  the  English  and  French,  all  intent 
on  forcing  the  proud  Japanese  to  concede  treaties  of  commerce;  and  if 
these  treaties  could  not  be  obtained  peaceably,  they  should  be  extorted 
by  force  of  arms.  . . . Not  satisfied  with  their  work  of  destruction,  the 
envoys  of  the  four  belligerent  nations  demanded  of  the  puzzled  and  dis- 
tressed Japanese  an  indemnity  of  three  million  dollars,  of  which  amount 
America  took  seven  hundred  and  eighty-five  thousand  dollars,  although 
the  cost  to  them  of  their  war  demonstration  was  only  twenty-five  thou- 
sand dollars. 

N.B.  [These  events  in  1858  must  not  be  confused  with  the  landing  of 
Commodore  Perry  in  1854,  when,  for  the  first  time  in  modern  history, 
and  by  perfectly  peaceful  methods,  certain  Japanese  ports  were  opened 
to  American  and  other  ships.] 

6.  Rev.  Charles  F.  Dole,  Jamaica  Plain,  Mass. 

7.  J.  A.  Hobson,  New  Age,  May  28,  1903. 

8.  Atherley  Jones,  M.P.,  ibid. 

9.  Sir  William  Butler,  The  South  African  War  Commission. 


342 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


10.  The  Imperial  Trader  at  Work  : 

Testimony  of  Commissioner  Jackson,  Aborigines'  Friend , 
August,  1904. 

Apart  from  the  injustice  of  depriving  the  Masai  of  their  land  nolens 
volens,  it  is  bound  to  lead  to  great  trouble  in  the  end.  Even  if  the  Masai 
do  not  resent  their  best  grazing-ground  being  taken  away  from  them, 
and  resort  to  force,  they  will  get  pushed  away  or  drift  away  of  their  own 
accord,  and  get  completely  out  of  touch  with  us,  and  therefore  out  of 
hand,  and  all  the  trouble  they  give  us  will  be  of  our  own  making. 

11.  See  References,  Chap.  VIII,  Note  16. 

12.  Trade  does  not  “Follow  the  Flag”: 

Testimony  of  Sir  Edward  Clarke,  War  against  War,  p.  28. 

During  that  forty  years  we  have  increased  the  area  of  our  authority 
in  the  world  to  an  enormous  extent,  and  have  brought  large  areas  and 
great  populations  under  our  direct  control;  whereas  at  the  beginning  of 
the  forty  years  our  trade  with  our  own  possessions  and  dependencies 
amounted  to  one  fourth  of  the  whole  trade  of  the  country,  at  the  end  of 
these  forty  years,  after  all  this  accretion  of  territory  and  population,  our 
trade  with  our  colonies  still  amounts  to  one  fourth  of  the  whole  volume 
of  our  trade.  The  proportion  has  been  steady,  though  the  area  of  our 
authority  has  so  largely  increased.  That  should  be,  and  1 think  is,  a 
certain  indication  it  is  not  by  the  direct  government  of  countries  that 
the  course  of  trade  is  mainly  or  materially  altered. 

13.  Professor  Walter  Rauschenbusch  (Rochester,  New  York), 
War  against  War,  p.  122. 

14.  Mr.  Arthur  Balfour,  M.P.,  House  of  Commons. 

15.  Political  Writings,  Vol.  I,  p.  222  (ed.  1903). 

16.  C.  A.  Conant,  Formn,  New  York,  June,  1899. 

17.  Edwin  D.  Mead,  Principles  of  the  Founders,  p.  65  : 

It  was  Emerson  who  . . . paid  the  most  memorable  tribute  ever  paid 
in  a single  phrase  to  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  When  Rufus 
Choate,  speaking  in  the  spirit  which  has  again  become  fashionable  among 
us  in  this  latest  time,  slurred  the  Declaration  as  a mass  of  “ glittering 
generalities,”  Emerson  took  up  the  taunt  with  quick  resentment,  and 
exclaimed,  . . . “ say  rather,  blazing  ubiquities  1 ” 

18.  C.  D.  Rudd,  New  Age,  July  n,  1901. 

19.  Cecil  Rhodes,  February  23,  1900. 


TO  THE  TRADER 


343 


20.  War  against  War,  p.  137. 

2 1 . San  Francisco  A rgonaitt,  quoted  in  New  Age,  J uly  24, 1 902. 

22.  Richard  Cobden,  Political  Writings,  Vol  I,  p.  34  (ed. 
I9°3)- 

23.  J.  B.  Robinson,  November  7,  1900. 

24.  Colonel  Pilkington,  New  Age,  May  28,  1903. 

25.  Major  Dugdale,  East  Dorset  Herald. 

26.  The  Preying  Spirit  in  War  and  Trade: 

(a)  Tolstoy,  Bethink  Yourselves  ! p.  36. 

The  more  money  and  labor  of  the  people  is  devoted  to  war,  the  more 
is  grabbed  by  various  authorities  and  speculators  who  know  that  no  one 
will  convict  them,  because  every  one  is  doing  the  same. 

(b)  Rev.  Father  Timoney,  Sydney  Catholic  Press. 

The  exchange  of  government  horses  for  others,  which  can  be  sold,  is 
a very  common  industry.  The  sale  of  government  stores  to  outsiders  is 
a flourishing  business,  and  so  ably  are  all  these  transactions  conducted 
that  it  is  impossible  to  sheet  his  guilt  home  to  the  swindler.  There  are 
generally  three  or  four  persons  concerned  in  these  shady  transactions, 
and  as  they  are  all  equally  guilty,  every  one  keeps  his  mind  to  himself. 
Another  brisk  business  on  a smaller  scale  is  to  requisition  for  clothes 
on  all  occasions,  and  to  sell  them  to  the  Kaffirs,  all  of  whom  around  us 
here,  about  five  hundred,  are  elegantly  dressed  in  uniforms,  including 
helmets,  leggings  or  putties,  khaki  tunics,  and  riding  breeches.  Those 
who  are  the  longest  in  the  army  are  the  greatest  and  most  scientific 
swindlers.  To  rob  the  government  is  in  their  eyes  an  act  of  solid  virtue. 
For,  after  all,  there  is  no  personal  wrong  done.  That  abstract  firm  called 
government  is  not  individually  injured,  and  no  man  of  spirit  and  energy, 
and  with  a head  on  his  shoulders,  should  hesitate  to  annex  whatever 
government  property  he  can  safely  lay  his  hands  on.  This  to  moralists 
may  seem  sophistry,  but  to  many  of  the  British  army  it  is  sound  rea- 
soning and  common  sense. 

27.  John  Ruskin,  Unto  this  Last,  p.  154. 

28 . War  against  War  in  South  A frica,  p.  1 1 . 

29.  Remark  of  a personal  friend. 

30.  Lord  Charles  Beresford,  North  American  Review,  New 
York. 

31.  Isaiah  of  Jerusalem,  chap.  xxxv.  Read  the  whole  poem. 


X 

THE  MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR  TO 
THE  CITIZEN 


There  is  evidently  an  attempt  at  universal  restoration  in  Europe. 
From  Vienna  it  has  passed  to  Rome  ; from  Rome  to  Paris.  Where  will 
it  stop  ? It  is  now  hanging  over  Switzerland,  Piedmont,  and  Belgium  ; 
it  tends  to  suppress  liberty,  the  press,  the  right  of  asylum.  When  that 
shall  be  accomplished,  when  England  shall  be  the  only  European  land 
upon  which  liberty,  the  press,  the  right  of  asylum,  still  exist,  do  you 
think  that  an  effort  will  not  be  made  to  destroy  them  there?  No  army, 
perhaps,  will  succeed  in  landing  upon  her  soil  ; but  is  it  by  invasion 
only  that  a country  is  destroyed  ? . . . England  arms  ; she  authorizes 
rifle  clubs;  she  speaks  of  militia;  she  is  then  in  fear;  and  yet  she 
repulses  the  most  efficient  means  of  safety  that  Europe  offers  her  ; 
she  leaves  the  peoples  who  would  be  her  nearest  allies  to  fall  one  by 
one  under  the  attacks  of  la  terreur  blanche  ; she  renounces  with  a fatal 
obstinacy  the  glorious  role  which  the  loss  of  the  French  initiative  yields 
to  the  first  nation  willing  to  seize  upon  it,  — a role  which  would  assure 
to  her  the  first  influence  in  the  Europe  of  the  future,  safety  from  all 
attempts  against  liberty,  and  the  consciousness  of  the  accomplishment  of 
a duty  towards  the  world.  [Her  best  defense  is  in]  the  alliance  of  the 
young  nationalities  which  will  shortly  furnish  her  with  the  opportunity 
of  overthrowing  that  imperialism  which  now  threatens  freedom  every- 
where, because  an  army  is  its  slave,  with  the  most  dangerous  enterprises. 
— Mazzini. 


X 


THE  MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR  TO  THE 
CITIZEN 

The  first  duty  of  a state  would  appear  to  be  the  pro- 
duction of  citizens ; but  there  is  none  of  first  rank  that 
is  not  to-day  the  seat  of  an  active  conspiracy  to  destroy 
citizens  by  making  void  their  citizenship.  The  vast 
possibilities  of  personal  and  social  greatness  which 
opened  out  to  the  nineteenth  century  have  been  frus- 
trated by  a stream  of  reactionary  influences  whose 
symptom  is  a showy  and  distempered  militarism,  and 
whose  secret  cause  is  a decadent  spirit  which  has 
abandoned  the  old  habits  of  thrift,  hardihood,  and  self- 
reliance,  for  the  sake  of  luxury,  pleasure,  and  con- 
quest. A former  generation  measured  its  greatness  by 
the  number  and  efficiency  of  its  establishments  for  im- 
proving the  health,  intelligence,  and  morals  of  its  mem- 
bers, or  by  the  ardor  with  which  it  desired  them  ; to-day 
we  weigh  guns  and  count  bayonets.  Whereas  public 
aspiration  was  directed  towards  the  making  of  better 
citizens  and  a higher  type  of  citizenship,  — such  as 
might  be  expected  from  education  on  a national  scale, 
municipal  libraries,  application  of  science  to  domestic, 
industrial,  and  municipal  life,  emergence  of  new  social 
principles,  recognition  of  nobler  democratic  relation- 
ships, and  cession  of  juster  political  rights,  — effort 
is  now  turned  chiefly  towards  provision  of  heavier 

347 


348 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


ironclads  and  bigger  armies.  The  satanic  spirit  of  war 
has  risen  to  dispute  the  path  of  advancing  democracy. 
It  is  sin,  not  necessity,  which  has  turned  the  achieve- 
ments of  modern  industrialism  into  food  for  powder; 
for  — to  put  Carlyle’s1  pointed  interrogatory  — “Why 
should  they  quarrel  ? . . . As  to  foreign  peace,  really 
all  Europe,  now  especially  with  so  many  railroads, 
public  journals,  printed  books,  penny  post,  bills  of  ex- 
change, and  continual  intercourse  and  mutual  depend- 
ence, is  more  and  more  becoming  (so  to  speak)  one 
parish  ; the  parishioners  of  which  being,  as  we  our- 
selves are,  in  immense  majority  peaceable  hard-working 
people,  could,  if  they  were  moderately  well  guided,  have 
almost  no  disposition  to  quarrel.”  Yet  once  more  the 
spectacle  is  seen  of  the  right  and  true  wrenched  by  the 
wrong  and  false  to  their  own  ends.  Yet  once  more  a 
mocking  devil  grins  at  us  from  the  face  of  the  newborn 
angel.  Democracy  is  made  to  fortify  despotism,  edu- 
cation to  equip  the  soldier,  literature  to  feed  the  fight- 
ing temper,  science  to  invent  new  engines  of  slaughter, 
economics  to  furnish  new  arguments  and  politics  to 
find  new  opportunities  for  strife.  Imperialism  has 
seduced  Democracy  : and  the  monstrous  birth  is  Mili- 
tarism. It  is  time  to  restrict  the  meaning  of  certain 
terms,  or  to  expand  the  meaning  of  certain  things.  It 
is  necessary  to  examine  this  portent  which  recently 
has  — to  borrow  a figure  from  Milton  — 

Like  a comet  burn’d 
That  fires  the  length  of  Ophiuchus  huge 
In  the  arctic  sky,  and  from  his  horrid  hair 
Shakes  pestilence  and  war. 


TO  THE  CITIZEN 


349 


When  we  speak  of  imperialism  we  mean  patriotism 
plus  pride;  not  jingoism,  which  is  patriotism  plus  de- 
lirium, and  which  bears  the  same  relation  to  the  first  that 
a tyrant  drunk  bears  to  a tyrant  sober.  The  first,  which 
alone  admits  of  discussion  amongst  sane  men,  has  been 
defined  ; and  though  there  are  two  varieties  — Liberal 
and  Conservative,  or,  if  you  please,  republican  and 
monarchical  — they  differ  in  nothing  but  name  : by 
their  fruits  we  know  them,  and  their  fruits  are  iden- 
tical. They  have  alike  ceased  to  believe  in  what  Mr. 
Gladstone  called  “that  original  sin  of  nations  — greed 
of  territorial  aggrandizement,”  — not,  alas  ! in  the  ag- 
grandizement, but  in  the  sin  of  it. 

Imperialism  is,  we  are  told,2  a formula  for  interpret- 
ing the  duties  of  government  in  relation  to  empire ; 
which  formula,  again,  is  compounded  of  four  elements, 
— an  emotion  of  pride,  a conviction  of  duty,  a deter- 
mination to  accept  every  burden,  and  a creed  whose 
single  article  is  faith  in  our  race.  Without  the  same 
verbal  nicety  it  has  been  explained  by  a competent 
disciple3  as  the  obligation  to  uphold  national  interests 
in  every  part  of  the  world,  even  at  the  cost  of  annexa- 
tion and  the  risk  of  war ; the  only  condition  being 
that  such  actions  shall  be  a manifest  gain  to  empire. 
We  now  know  where  we  are.  It  will  be  observed  that 
the  monster  is  born  in  pride,  suckled  on  greed,  cradled 
in  war,  and  apotheosized  in  more  pride ; that,  further, 
the  Ten  Commandments  are  not  included;  nor  the 
“ interests  ” of  other  countries.  It  is  selfishness  leaning 
on  arms.  It  is  politics  corrupted  by  strength,  citizen- 
ship demoralized  by  war.  Wherever  it  goes,  at  home 


350 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


or  abroad,  the  citizen  dwindles.  And  first,  see  how  this 
happens  abroad. 

The  fundamental  nature  of  citizenship  is  freedom  of 
opinion,  speech,  action,  government ; yet  it  is  precisely 
upon  these  that  imperialism  is  trampling  in  every  part 
of  the  world.  War  and  magnanimity  never  go  together  ; 
aggression  and  suppression  are  twin  brothers  ; and  if 
we  add  a third,  stupidity,  we  shall  have  a perfect  trin- 
ity. The  conquering  nations  — not  least  the  British 
people  — exhibit  a blind  incapacity  to  put  themselves 
in  the  other  man’s  place  and  imagine  how  it  looks  to 
him.  There  is  an  imperial  self-righteousness  which  can- 
not comprehend  how  any  nation  should  demur  to  impe- 
rial arrogance,  or  prefer  to  die  under  its  own  flag  rather 
than  live  under  ours.  If  a little  Republic,  like  shepherd 
David,  refuses  the  yoke  and  challenges  imperial  Goliath 
to  mortal  combat,  it  will  come  as  an  apoplectic  shock 
to  Empire,  which  will  find  breath  at  length  only  in 
one  universal  howl  of  derision  and  shout  of  “ Inso- 
lence!” Desiring  to  be  great  in  arms  rather  than  in 
faith  and  virtue,  it  will  be  a thing  unpardonable  that  a 
coveted  country  should  question  the  duty  or  privilege 
of  being  swallowed  by  an  imperial  race.  Extension 
of  commerce  is  regarded  as  extension  of  civilization, 
increase  of  territory  as  increase  of  law  and  justice : 
weaker  tribes  should  accept  the  whole,  and  be  thank- 
ful. Two  ideas  divide  the  mind, — how  to  acquire,  then 
how  to  defend,  alien  land ; and  those  who  refuse  to 
bow  the  knee  are,  if  they  live  in  the  coveted  country, 
regarded  as  fools  for  not  seeing  the  manifest  advantages 


TO  THE  CITIZEN 


351 


of  absorption,  and  if  in  the  conquering  country,  as 
traitors  for  opposing  expansion  by  force.  So  far  from 
being  ashamed  of  their  domineering  policies,  imperial 
races  accept  foreign  reproach  as  mere  envy  of  great- 
ness, wear  it  as  an  ornament  about  their  necks,  wax 
proud  of  their  insular  pride,  and  continue  to  display 
equal  contempt  for  an  enemy’s  objection  to  be  plun- 
dered, for  the  civilized  world’s  disapprobation,  and  for 
moral  protest  within  their  own  coasts.  They  pray  every 
Sunday  to  be  delivered  from  hardness  of  heart  and  con- 
tempt of  God’s  commandments;  yet  go  on  their  impe- 
rial way  in  the  spirit  of  that  Lucifer  who  sought  to 
exalt  his  throne  above  the  stars  of  God.  No  spirit  ever 
soared  so  high  on  free  suffrage  ; it  is  on  the  necks 
of  slaves,  not  by  the  votes  of  citizens,  Lucifer  exalts 
himself. 

Salvation  is  rendered  more  desperate  from  the  fact 
now  hinted  : that  the  penalties  exacted  by  expansionism 
and  inflicted  by  Providence,  — wars,  deaths,  taxes,  debts, 
— are  turned  into  new  food  for  pride  ; that  punish- 
ments which  moral  beings  endure  with  some  sense  of 
shame  are  by  nations  accepted  as  evidences  of  prow- 
ess and  national  spirit  : “ They  [the  Lancers  at  Om- 
durman]  chafed  and  stamped  and  blasphemed  to  go 
through  them  [the  Dervishes]  again.  . . . There  were 
gnashings  of  teeth  and  howls  of  speechless  rage  — 
things  half  theatrical,  half  brutal  to  tell  of  when  blood 
has  cooled,  yet  tilings  to  rejoice  over,  in  that  they  show 
the  fighting  devil  has  not,  after  all,  been  civilized  out 
of  Britons .”  4 Like  the  pugilist  with  his  bruises  they 
glory  in  their  shame.  They  take  their  punishment,  not 


352 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


with  humiliation  as  the  measure  of  their  unfraternity, 
but  with  almost  religious  veneration  as  their  “magnifi- 
cent sacrifices  ” on  behalf  of  empire.  In  like  manner 
the  burglar  might  refer  to  his  imprisonment,  the  foot- 
pad to  his  penal  servitude,  or  the  drunkard  to  his 
headache,  as  his  “magnificent  sacrifice”  on  behalf, 
respectively,  of  a more  equable  distribution  of  pro- 
perty, manly  trial  of  strength,  freedom  of  will  or  good- 
fellowship  ; similarly,  the  tyrant  might  reasonably  claim 
to  be  a benefactor  because  he  had  put  down  anarchy, 
or  the  anarchist  that  he  had  set  down  tyranny.  That 
blasphemous  tendency  of  imperialism  to  take  the  terms 
proper  to  religion  — the  holy  word  sacrifice , for  example, 
proper  only  to  a victim  — and  apply  them  to  such  politi- 
cal adventures  as  sacrifice  the  innocent  and  victimize 
the  unoffending  is  proof  that  some  foul  spirit  utters 
its  oracles.  It  is  as  though  the  Jewish  people  were  to 
appropriate  the  ideas  of  unselfishness  and  cross  bearing 
usually  associated  with  the  Crucified,  and  vaunt  their 
downfall  and  dispersion  as  “magnificent  sacrifices”  on 
behalf  of  their  ancestral  land  and  temple  ; or  as  though 
the  Christian  peoples,  after  their  innumerable  massacres 
of  innocent  Jews,  were  to  boast  their  blood  stains  as 
“ magnificent  sacrifices  ” on  behalf  of  Jesus.  If  patriot- 
ism be  love  of  fatherland,  certainly  it  must  include  the 
idea  of  sacrifice  ; but  it  ought  to  be  sacrifice  of  territory 
to  conscience,  not  conscience  to  territory  ; of  might  to 
right,  not  right  to  might ; of  paramountcy  to  brother- 
hood, not  brotherhood  to  paramountcy.  A race  which 
bears  abroad  the  thunders  makes  subjects,  not  citizens; 
keeps  an  India  under  foot  for  a century,  and  remains 


TO  THE  CITIZEN 


353 


as  resolute  as  at  first  to  exclude  its  subjects  from  the 
rights  and  liberties  of  citizenship.  If  we  are  to  boast 
of  our  sacrifices,  let  it  be  our  sacrifices  on  behalf  of  jus- 
tice, mercy,  humility  ; our  sufferings  for  peace’s  sake ; 
our  losses  for  commonwealth  ; our  willingness  to  be 
humbled  that  the  human  race  may  be  exalted,  to  learn, 
in  the  words  of  Mrs.  Browning,5 

How  to  quench  a lie 

With  truth,  and  smite  a foe  upon  the  cheek 

With  Christ’s  most  conquering  kiss.  Why,  these  are  things 
Worth  a great  nation’s  finding,  to  prove  weak 
The  “glorious  arms  ” of  military  kings. 

And  so  with  wide  embrace,  my  England,  seek 
To  stifle  the  bad  heat  and  flickerings 
Of  this  world’s  false  and  nearly  expended  fire  ! 

Till  nations  shall  unconsciously  aspire 

By  looking  up  to  thee,  and  learn  that  good 
And  glory  are  not  different.  Announce  law 
By  freedom  ; exalt  chivalry  by  peace  ; 

Instruct  how  clear  calm  eyes  can  overawe, 

And  how  pure  hands,  stretched  simply  to  release 
A bond-slave,  will  not  need  a sword  to  draw 
To  be  held  dreadful.  O my  England,  crease 
Thy  purple  with  no  alien  agonies, 

No  struggles  toward  encroachment,  no  vile  war ! 

Disband  thy  captains,  change  thy  victories, 

Be  henceforth  prosperous  as  the  angels  are, 

Helping,  not  humbling. 

Imperialism  is  so  far  moved  by  the  poet’s  passionate 
entreaty  as  to  take  goodly  words  into  its  mouth  even 
while  it  takes  strong  arms  in  its  hand  ; and  protests 
that  its  mission  is  to  carry  the  blessings  of  civilization 
to  the  barbarous  and  misgoverned  peoples  of  the  earth  : 


354 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


“ Our  purpose  is  not  selfish,  it  is  humanitarian ; it  is 
not  the  vanity  of  self-aggrandizement,  it  is  not  the  greed 
of  power  and  dominion  ; no,  no,  not  these,  but  altruism 
caring  for  the  happiness  of  others,  philanthropy  reliev- 
ing [the  victims]  of  oppression,  and  conferring  on  them 
the  blessings  of  liberty.”  6 Never  is  hypocrisy  so  proud 
of  itself.  In  the  fond  faith  that  it  represents  the  chosen 
colonizing  people  whose  law  and  government  are  best 
for  all  the  world  it  goes  forth  bullying  in  the  name  of 
liberty,  coercing  in  the  name  of  independence,  annex- 
ing in  the  name  of  self-government ; and  since  it  pos- 
sesses the  means  of  killing  those  who  refuse  to  acquiesce 
in  these  measures,  it  is  able  to  present  the  appearance 
of  a very  great  and  successful  affair.  Flattering  itself 
as  peacemaker  of  the  world,  it  protests  that  it  keeps 
its  right  arm  strong  for  good  as  well  as  defense,  — as  if 
a householder’s  opinion  that  his  household  was  ordered 
better  than  his  neighbor’s  justified  him  in  setting  fire 
to  that  neighbor’s  dwelling,  and  killing  such  of  the 
family  as  refused  to  conform  to  his  rule;  which  reason- 
ing cannot  be  met  better  than  by  the  prose  words  of 
the  poet  just  quoted,  whose  Casa  Guidi  Windows, 
chief  of  her  poems,  would  prove,  could  people  but  be 
got  to  read,  best  antidote  to  this  virus  of  bloated  im- 
perialism : “Freedom  itself  is  virtue,  as  well  as  privi- 
lege ; but  freedom  of  the  seas  does  not  mean  piracy ; 
nor  freedom  of  the  land,  brigandage ; nor  freedom  of 
the  senate,  freedom  to  cudgel  a dissident  member  ; nor 
freedom  of  the  press,  freedom  to  calumniate  and  lie.”  7 
The  end  which  cannot  be  secured  save  by  unlawful 
means  is  an  unlawful  end.  Lowell’s  “ Candidate  for 


TO  THE  CITIZEN 


355 


the  Presidency  ” 8 has  indeed  propagated  the  heresy 
that  civilization  may  get  a lift  in  a powder  cart ; but 
it  may  also  be  blown  into  the  air  by  the  thing  that 
carries  it ; and  since  the  fallacy  was  proclaimed  by 
“jest  a candidate”  who  gloried  in  having  no  principles, 
both  criticism  and  history  justify  us  in  rejecting  it  as 
neither  our  own  nor  Lowell’s.  War  and  civilization 
are  contradictory  terms.  The  plea  of  good  government 
is  turned  to  purposes  of  vile  aggression ; and  the  pre- 
tense of  advancing  the  humanities  by  that  which  has 
been  described  as  the  negation  of  all  virtues  and  the 
sum  of  all  villainies  is  an  hypocrisy  gross  and  palpable  as 
the  lies  of  Falstaff.  The  pretense  was  never  set  forth 
better  than  by  the  imperial  Pyrrhus  who,  amid  all  his 
senseless  butcheries,  professed  to  be  seeking  a solid  and 
enduring  peace ; nor  ever  better  answered  than  by  the 
yet  wholesome.  Roman  Senate : “ If  Pyrrhus  really 
wishes  for  the  friendship  of  the  Roman  people,  let  him 
first  abdicate  their  dominions,  and  then  the  sincerity 
of  his  proposals  of  peace  may  gain  some  credit.”  No; 
citizenship  and  war  can  never  be  harmonized.  On  the 
contrary,  war  destroys  the  bodies  of  possible  citizens 
abroad,  and  demoralizes  the  souls  of  actual  citizens  at 
home.  Perception  of  that  inevitable  result  of  imperial 
conquest  lay  behind  the  magnanimous  offer  (alas!  a 
vain  offer,  as  it  transpired)  of  an  American  citizen  9 to 
pay  twenty  million  dollars  to  the  government  of  his 
country,  if  it  would  surrender  its  grip  upon  a people 
rightly  struggling  to  be  free. 

The  attempt  to  give  imperialism  a moral  basis  has  re- 
sulted, hitherto,  only  in  a more  consummate  hypocrisy 


356 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


— the  hypocrisy  of  the  bagman  who  wants  to  trade, 
and  a more  unspeakable  cant  — the  cant  of  the  mis- 
sionary who  wants  to  evangelize,  in  the  track  of  the 
soldier.  The  gospel,  too,  and  commerce  get  a lift  in 
the  powder  cart.  Mr.  Rudyard  Kipling’s  invitation  to 
“take  up  the  white  man’s  burden”  is  merely  grease 
to  the  wheels  of  the  powder  cart,  a sop  to  sentiment, 
an  opiate  to  the  missionary  conscience. 

When,  further,  we  are  urged10  to  follow  up  the 
powder-and-brandy  adventurer  who,  protected  by  his 
government,  goes  forth  to  prey  upon  the  weaker  races, 
who  is  generally  the  most  lawless  and  licentious  of  our 
breed,11  — when  the  duty  of  protecting  the  native  races 
from  his  depredations  is  urged  upon  us,  we  feel  that  more 
glittering  dust  has  been  thrown  in  our  eyes.  For  it  is 
not  from  purely  natural  causes  that  “ the  native  on  first 
touching  civilization  invariably  loses  his  own  primitive 
virtues  and  acquires  only  civilized  vices.”  12  Mr.  Kip- 
ling’s faithful  brutalities  introduce  us  to  many  a realistic 
personage  whose  prayer  is  “ Ship  me  somewheres  east 
of  Suez  . . . where  there  are  n’t  no  Ten  Command- 
ments,”13  “whose  Decalogue”  (to  quote  the  pictur- 
esque description  of  a Scottish  sheriff) 14  “ has  had  the 
seventh  article  of  it  edited  and  expounded,  if  results 
can  warrant  an  inference,  by  a canonical  committee  of 
goats  and  monkeys.”  And  is  it  even  distantly  the  case 
that  the  Christian  governments  follow  up  the  devil 
spawn  they  have  bred  to  plague  the  simple  peoples  of 
the  Orient,  for  the  purpose  of  punishing  their  tres- 
passes and  of  supporting  the  native  tribes  in  upholding 
so  much  as  the  elementary  decencies,  not  to  speak  of 


TO  THE  CITIZEN 


357 


such  things  as  ethics  and  law  ? Is  it  not  notoriously 
not  so  ? Is  it  not  the  case  that  we  follow  the  spoiler  to 
protect  him  against  the  outraged  moral  sense  of  savages 
he  has  debauched,  against  the  indignant  public  opinion 
of  cannibals  to  whom  he  has  given  points  in  treachery 
and  murder,  against  the  religious  penalties  of  heathens 
whose  conscience  he  has  revolted  by  his  infamies  ? We 
follow  up  the  trader,  true ; yet  not  to  protect  his  vic- 
tims, but  to  protect  against  their  justice  the  aggressor. 
And  when  native  peoples  revolt  because  the  panoply 
of  empire  is  flung  around  the  person  of  the  basest  of 
mankind  for  the  reason  that  he  belongs  to  a white-skin 
state,  and  because  the  empire’s  armaments  are  directed 
against  the  victims,  to  avenge,  it  may  be,  their  just 
execution  of  a miscreant  who  has  violated  every  law  of 
his  own  country  and  every  precept  of  his  own  religion 
as  well  as  the  ethical  and  religious  principles  of  the 
very  barbarians  he  has  outraged,  then  their  honorable 
resistance  is  made  a pretext  for  annexing  their  territory 
and  killing  all  who  oppose.  In  too  many  instances  of 
colonial  expansion  “we  find  the  typical  transactions: 
betrayals  of  many  natives  and  merciless  sacrifice  of 
their  lives ; eventual  retaliation  by  the  natives  to  a 
small  extent  ; a consequent  charge  against  the  natives 
of  atrocious  murder  ; and,  finally,  a massacre  of  them, 
innocent  and  guilty  together.”  15  To  describe  this 
process  as  “taking  up  the  white  man’s  burden”  is  the 
most  odious  and  shameful  cant.  It  rs  another  crushing 
proof  that  military  civilizations  are  a curse  to  citizens, 
a blight  upon  citizenship,  a mockery  of  every  civic 
ideal. 


358 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


If  the  author  of  “The  White  Man’s  Burden”  gives  us 
the  poetry  of  imperialism,  billowed,  for  obvious  reasons, 
on  a falsetto  ditty,  he  has  also  given  us  its  prose,  ex- 
pressed very  properly  in  sententious  proverb  : “ Mr.  . . . 
does  not  need  morality  : he  is  building  an  empire.” 
This  is,  in  fact,  the  body  of  the  thing  ; the  rest  is  fringe. 
This  is  the  whole  truth,  from  one  who  knows.  Morality 
is  a hindrance  and  an  irritation  to  empire  builders. 
Their  conscience  is  the  conscience  of  a steam  roller. 
But  the  steam  roller  must  be  greased  ; and  the  “unctu- 
ous ” matter  is  supplied  by  “ The  White  Man’s  Burden.” 

If  we  must  be  imperialists,  let  us  not  be  pharisees. 
Let  us  confess  that  our  aim  is  glory,  not  cross  bearing ; 
conquest,  not  civilization  ; subjugation,  not  citizenship. 
If  we  must  be  imperial  expansionists,  let  us  not  be  liars. 
Let  imperialism  not  be  ashamed  of  its  parentage,  lust 
of  dominion  mingling  with  lust  of  gold.  The  militarism 
which  blights  the  world  is  due  to  a feverish  race  for  em- 
pire, and  chiefly  to  Britain’s  resolve  to  be  supreme  upon 
land  as  formerly  on  sea.  As  with  private  so  with  public 
estates  ; the  land  is  getting  into  fewer  and  fewer  hands, 
with  increasing  omens  of  disaster  in  both  cases.  Russia, 
Germany,  France,  America,  Great  Britain,  are  rapidly 
becoming  the  landlords  of  the  world ; and  though  the 
latter’s  possessions  amount  to  nearly  one  third  of  the 
entire  land  surface  of  the  globe,  a besotted  imperial- 
ism constantly  urges  her  to  maintain  her  equilibrium  by 
buttressing  with  new  territory  her  already  top-heavy  ac- 
cumulations. The  very  language  — buttressing  and  top- 
heavy  — suggests  an  empire  drunk ; and  drunkenness 


TO  THE  CITIZEN 


359 


never  went  well  with  citizenship.  On  the  contrary, 
imperialism  has  in  our  own  day  led  to  a ferocious  war 
against  a race  of  burghers,  for  no  other  reason  than  that 
they  promised  to  distance  an  imperial  race  in  the  peace- 
ful rivalries  of  the  family  and  the  moral  conflicts  of  the 
ballot  box,  and  stands  completely  unveiled  as  a move- 
ment towards  disfranchisement.  Imperial  ambition 
begins  by  vanquishing  civic  conscience  at  home,  pro- 
ceeds to  suppress  civic  rights  abroad,  and  then  returns 
to  “plague  th’  inventor  ” by  abolishing  civic  liberties 
in  the  home  land.  Love  of  right  disappears  amid  exhila- 
rations of  victory  ; the  nation  which  started  out  with 
fine  ideas  of  its  civilizing  mission  ends  just  like  any 
other  vulgar  bandit,  and  fills  its  mouth  with  cant  as  a 
salve  to  the  aching  void  left  in  its  breast  by  the  dead 
conscience.  Endeavoring  to  absorb  and  transform  the 
world  to  its  type  of  civilization,  it  finds  it  cannot  per- 
form the  task  of  assimilation,  thus  failing  in  the  work 
of  citizenship  ; yet  declines  to  disgorge  the  prey, 
thus  sinking  into  the  vulgar  conqueror ; and  ends  by 
fulfilling  the  prophecy  of  the  imperialist  Bonaparte,  that 
“ empires  generally  die  of  indigestion  through  swal- 
lowing too  much  territory.”  Appetite  outruns  capacity. 
The  covetous  eye  is  bigger  than  the  digestive  organ. 
Repletion  leads  to  death.  The  downfall  of  the  last  op- 
ponent of  imperial  advance  is  preliminary  to  the  down- 
fall of  the  imperial  conscience,  and  this  to  the  downfall 
of  the  empire.  The  penetrating  words  of  Dr.  Kuyper16 
are  completely  accurate  : 

“Yes,  this  imperialism  is  an  obsession.  It  worms 
itself  into  the  heart  of  the  nation  from  the  moment 


360 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


that  the  last  opponent  that  troubles  it  bends  under  its 
blows,  thus  opening  every  land  road  to  the  eagles  of 
its  army,  as  formerly  for  Rome,  and  every  sea  route  to 
the  flag  of  its  fleet,  as  for  England  after  Trafalgar.  So 
long  as  the  last  opponent  continues  to  resist,  he  will 
always  be,  in  spite  of  you,  the  ally  of  your  conscience, 
which,  by  the  forces  at  its  command,  constrains  you  to 
respect  for  right.  But  once  the  last  rival  is  brought  to 
his  knees,  your  love  of  right  remains  alone,  and  must, 
without  any  external  support,  suffice  for  itself.  If  then, 
at  this  psychological  moment,  the  conscience  of  the 
nation  betrays  itself,  the  danger  is  that  it  will  pre- 
cipitate itself  from  the  highest  idealism  into  the  most 
vulgar  cynicism.  Stronger  by  land  or  by  sea  than  any 
other  nation,  and  even  than  all  other  nations  combined, 
its  unlimited  power  unconsciously  suggests  to  it  the 
dream  of  universal  power ; and  the  history  of  Tyre 
may  be  repeated.” 

Further,  an  alarmed  moral  sense  sees  much  to  justify 
its  fears  in  the  fact  that  the  chief  national  treaties  and 
alliances  spring  more  from  fear  than  love,  more  from 
selfishness  than  neighborliness,  and  are  advocated 
rather  as  means  of  stronger  defense  than  steps  towards 
universal  peace.  Anglo-Saxon  federation  — to  take  a 
supreme  instance  — is  commonly  preached  in  such  a 
way  as  to  provoke  selfishness  in  Anglo-Saxons  and 
jealousy  in  the  rest  of  mankind ; as  an  assertion  of 
race  superiority  which  might  pass  as  only  another  ex- 
ample of  insular  ignorance  : but  finally  appears  as  an 
attempt  at  race  supremacy  which  must,  at  some  point, 
be  disputed  to  the  death.  Never  is  that  desirable 


TO  THE  CITIZEN 


361 


federation  more  immoral  or  illusive  than  when  it  is 
preached  as  an  apostolate  of  peace  by  force,  as  a method 
of  keeping  the  peace  of  the  world  by  overwhelming 
armaments  — as  if  the  Anglo-Saxon  race  could  be 
trusted  with  omnipotence,  or  Prometheus  had  died  out 
from  the  hearts  of  the  other  races.  Never  ! “A.  proud 
look,  a lying  tongue,  and  hands  that  shed  innocent 
blood,  are  an  abomination  to  the  Lord  ” ; and  also  to 
man,  if  only  as  a stimulus  to  jealousy  and  revenge. 
Empire  is  a luxury  which  can  be  maintained  only  at 
great  cost,  and  one  of  the  items  in  the  bill  is  the  con- 
fidence of  the  sister  nations,  who  pay  their  dues  to 
imperial  greatness  in  the  shape  of  secret  enmity,  rising 
at  set  times  into  open  conflict.  When  an  assertion  of 
paramountcy  becomes  intolerable  the  remonstrances  of 
the  civilized  world  culminate  in  force,  and  in  that  Sheol 
which  is  not  only  for  wicked  persons  but  for  “ all  the 
nations  which  forget  God.”  Warlike  experiments  in 
city  building  have  been  made  from  the  beginning  of 
time,  and  with  similar  results.  Citizens  made  by  the 
sword  become  rebels  on  the  first  opportunity.  Citizen- 
ship that  rests  on  conquest  is  an  anxiety  while  it  lasts, 
and  in  the  end  destruction.  An  old-world  preacher 
shall  pronounce  its  doom  : “ The  stone  shall  cry  out 
of  the  wall,  and  the  beam  out  of  the  timber  shall  answer 
it.  Woe  to  him  that  buildeth  a town  with  blood,  and 
establisheth  a city  by  iniquity  ! ” 

As  the  fascinations  of  empire  do  not  exhaust  them- 
selves with  the  racial  idea,  but  bewitch  the  individual 
also,  so  with  its  destructions.  Every  member  of  an 
imperial  race  feels  himself  exalted  in  the  supremacy  of 


362 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


his  country,  appropriates  its  triumphs,  pours  out  taxes 
as  soldiers  pour  out  blood,  and  is  repaid  in  the  proud 
thought  that  he  is  a member  of  a chosen  people.  For 
this  he  barters  his  citizenship.  The  little  mind  grows 
big  by  feeding  on  thoughts  of  empire.  The  empty  mind 
rolls’  them  round  and  round  till  it  inflates  with  windy 
vanity.  The  dullard  mind  absorbs  them  and  grows 
drunk.  Little  persons  perch  themselves  like  sparrows 
upon  the  highest  circle  of  “ our  vast  empire  ” and  crow 
like  masters  of  all  the  earth.  The  weakling  and  the 
coward  know  that  the  blood  of  a dominant  race  is  in 
their  veins,  and  become  insufferable  with  self-import- 
ance. New  continents  bring  new  conceits,  in  the  intoxi- 
cation of  which  much  sin  is  remorselessly  committed 
and  much  suffering  cheerfully  endured.  If  suffering 
shall  not  be  permitted  to  interfere  with  imperial  advance, 
why  should  sin  ? Nay  ; they  even  dream  that  pain  and 
loss  is  the  measure  of  their  sincerity,  and  atones  for 
their  sin.  They  are  willing  to  pay  away  their  civil 
liberties  for  the  luxury  of  destroying  those  of  other 
peoples. 

The  destructive  influence  of  empire  upon  citizenship 
abroad  runs  parallel  with  that  which  obtains  at  home. 
As  militarism  advances  citizenship  necessarily  declines. 
Organs  of  public  opinion  speak  with  “ whispered  hum- 
bleness ” in  presence  of  the  military  autocrat:  “It  is 
painful  to  us  to  differ  from  the  [commander-in-chief], 
and  seems  almost  sacrilegious  on  a military  question.”  17 
The  soldier  slays  the  citizen  even  when  he  spares  the 
man.  The  soldier  is  the  personal  equivalent  of  empire ; 
the  citizen,  of  commonwealth  ; and  as  it  is  empire  against 


TO  THE  CITIZEN 


363 


commonwealth,  so  it  is  fighter  against  voter,  bayonet 
against  ballot,  the  world  over.  Democracy  need  be 
under  no  delusion  ; militarism  is  its  natural  foe,  whose 
one  aim  is  to  prevent  its  reaching  its  goal  of  equal  rights 
and  opportunities.  Militarism  is  everywhere  hostile  to 
citizenship : the  soldier  stands  everywhere  as  a rampart 
between  Privilege  and  the  rights  of  the  common  man.18 
“These  enormous  standing  armies  . . . are  indispen- 
sable at  home  to  repress  the  discontent  caused  in  a 
great  degree  by  the  burden  which  their  own  cost 
imposes  on  the  people.” 19  The  propertied  classes, 
dominated  by  financial  magnates,  quickened  by  their 
accession  in  vast  numbers  to  the  position  of  share- 
holders, alarmed  by  the  boldness  of  the  social  claim, 
desire  a powerful  army  as  much  to  defend  their  pos- 
sessions at  home  as  to  extend  them  abroad.  Germany’s 
Social  Democrats20  went  to  the  root  of  the  matter 
when  they  declared  their  opinion  that  ruinous  arma- 
ments were  a “ product  of  the  avarice  and  lust  of  con- 
quest and  mastery  among  the  ruling  classes,”  and  that 
peace  could  never  arrive  “ so  long  as  standing  armies 
admittedly  serve  as  implements  for  the  subjugation  of 
nations  and  the  maintenance  of  the  authority  of  a 
class.”  This  is  the  only  note  that  shakes  the  mind  of 
the  military  ruler.  Criticisms,  even  denunciations,  he 
does  not  mind  ; the  only  thing  he  fears  is  a clear  per- 
ception on  the  part  of  the  common  people  of  the  true 
end  and  object  of  standing  armies,  and  so  he  hastens 
to  counteract  the  liberty-bringing  utterances  of  enlight- 
ened reformers  by  obscurantist  appeals  to  imperial 
pride : “I  do  not  care  whether  they  denounce  the 


364 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


government ; but  do  not  let  them  attempt  to  dissuade 
the  people  from  bearing  such  taxation  and  bearing 
such  burden  as  may  be  necessary  to  carry  on  the  duties 
of  empire.” 21  The  result  was  recently  presented  in 
a great  object  lesson  by  France,  whose  army  placed 
itself  in  daring  opposition  to  the  civil  powers,  and 
all  but  throttled  the  commonwealth.  The  army,  — the 
honor  of  the  army,  the  prestige  of  the  army,  the 
national  position  of  the  army, — was  set  over  against 
the  state,  — the  sacredness  of  civil  authority,  the  suprem- 
acy of  the  civil  powers,  — and,  but  for  the  Cato-like 
resolution  of  a few  heroic  citizens,  would  have  erected 
itself  into  a military  tyranny.  The  specter  that  almost 
suffocated  France  begins  to  be  outlined  on  the  horizon 
of  every  country  that  declares  for  empire.  The  French 
upon  whom  the  tower  of  their  military  Siloam  fell  were 
not  sinners  above  all  that  dwelt  in  Europe  and  America. 
Except  we  repent  we  shall  all  likewise  perish. 

Empire  gives  the  soldier  his  opportunity  by  making 
him  increasingly  necessary  and  by  throwing  upon  him 
a number  of  duties  ordinarily  performed  by  civilians. 
Generals  in  the  field  assume  the  functions  of  civil  gov- 
ernors, depose  native  rulers  and  substitute  creatures 
of  their  own,  suppress  newspapers  and  establish  orgarts 
inspired  by  their  own  ideas,22  govern  a civil  community 
by  military  proclamation,23  compel  civilians  to  become 
combatants  in  complete  submission  to  martial  rule,24 
thus  introducing  conscription 25  and  the  press  gang 
without  sanction  of  law  and  displaying  every  attribute 
of  tyranny  on  plea  of  military  necessity.  Conscription 


TO  THE  CITIZEN 


36s 


begins  informally,  under  pressure,  at  the  instance  of 
a commander,  and  ends  by  becoming  the  settled  policy 
of  a nation,  enforced  by  parliament,  acquiesced  in 
by  all. 

Conscription  is  the  inevitable  goal  of  an  imperialist 
policy,  the  definite  aim  of  military  parties,  and  implies 
the  direct  opposite  of  all  civic  ideals.  Those  who  sup- 
port empire  as  against  commonwealth  make  it  their 
business  to  prepare  their  country  for  a system  which 
merges  citizen  in  soldier : devising  schemes  of  military 
drill  for  schools,  forming  cadet  corps  amongst  past  and 
present  scholars,  multiplying  boys’  brigades  amongst  the 
churches,  getting  higher  pay  for  militia  and  increased 
facilities  for  volunteers,  yeomanry,  sharpshooters,  — 
drilling,  inspecting,  perorating;  by  which  means  the 
public  mind  is  indoctrinated  with  the  ideas  and  seduced 
by  the  glamour  of  militarism,  taught  how  glorious  it  is 
to  lay  the  flower  of  a nation’s  youth  upon  the  altar  of 
Moloch,  and  persuaded  to  make  the  grand  sacrifice  on 
behalf  of  empire.  The  matter  has  now  come  to  the 
push,  requiring  nothing  but  a serious  threat  of  inva- 
sion to  precipitate  it.  Partly  by  force  of  circumstances, 
partly  through  skillful  engineering,  we  are  now  called 
upon  either  to  accept  conscription  or  to  abandon 
imperialism.  They  cannot  longer  be  kept  apart.  We 
must  presently  choose  between  remaining  citizens  and 
becoming  soldiers. 

A clever  inversion  of  the  process  by  which  the  school 
is  being  turned  into  a rudimentary  army  has  been  pro- 
posed,26 according  to  which  an  imperialist  people  might 
rather  turn  its  army  into  a school  : school  becoming  an 


366 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


appendage  and  outgrowth  of  army,  rather  than  army 
being  dependent  on  school ; army  being  basis  of  school, 
not  school  of  army ; the  three  R’s  being  grafted  upon 
drill,  instead  of  drill  upon  the  three  R’s  ; technical 
training  and  discipline  of  character  being  superadded 
to  instruction  in  the  science  of  slaughter.  The  idea 
appears  to  be  to  rescue  the  army  from  opprobrium  as 
a mere  fighting  instrument,  make  it  presentable  as  a 
school  of  industrial  art,  and  thus  commend  it  to  a 
nation  not  yet  wholly  reconciled  to  the  notion  of  pure 
militarism.  The  drill  sergeant  is  to  supplement,  if  not 
supplant,  the  schoolmaster ; the  recruit  is  to  be  turned 
into  an  artisan  as  well  as  a warrior : the  net  result 
being  that  while  it  would  be  found  impossible  to  turn 
the  army  into  a school  or  a workshop,  it  would  be  too 
easy  to  turn  the  school  into  an  army,  every  college  into 
a barrack,  and  every  university  into  an  officers’  mess. 
This  suggestion,  like  every  other  of  the  kind,  overlooks 
that  personal  and  social  demoralization  which  accom- 
panies military  systems  in  every  conscript  country.  It 
is  vain  to  think  of  having  conscription  without  civic 
degradation.  Fire  cannot  be  had  without  burning,  sewer 
gas  without  fever,  poison  without  death.  Just  in  pro- 
portion as  a military  basis  is  given  to  society  national 
I character  is  switched  on  to  lower  lines,  — materialism 
in  morals,  paganism  in  religion,  and  unconstitutional- 
ism in  politics. 

If  we  ask  what  it  is  that  excites  this  lust  for  a mili- 
tary type  of  character,  we  shall  find  the  answer  in 
society’s  weariness  of  the  slow  returns  of  agriculture 


TO  THE  CITIZEN 


367 


and  industry  — and,  therefore,  of  civic  arts  and  models, 
of  the  laboring  type  of  character  — and  society’s  desire 
for  those  swift  returns  of  conquest  which  add  whole 
provinces,  with  their  trade  and  territories,  to  the  empire 
in  a single  day,  without  the  dull  and  prosaic  necessities 
of  working  and  paying.  Imperial  races  become  sated 
with  luxury,  crave  the  excitements  of  war  and  the  stim- 
ulants of  conquest,  and  welcome  the  transformation  of 
their  homely  workers  into  gay  soldiery. 

But  is  it  not  more  important  to  teach  men  to  work 
than  to  kill  ? And  if  we  were  to  train  for  labor  as 
systematically  as  we  train  for  battle,  — to  instruct  in 
the  hammer  as  well  as  we  do  in  the  bayonet,  in  the 
spade  as  thoroughly  as  in  the  cannon,  in  the  plow  as 
carefully  as  in  the  rifle,  — would  not  the  laborer  pre- 
sent to  the  world  a front  as  cheerful  and  alert  ? Rus- 
kin,27  as  ever,  has  shown  the  way : “ Men  are  enlisted 
for  the  labor  that  kills  — the  labor  of  war : they  are 
counted,  trained,  fed,  dressed,  and  praised  for  that. 
Let  them  be  enlisted  also  for  the  labor  that  feeds  : let 
them  be  counted,  trained,  fed,  dressed,  praised  for 
that.” 

Would  it  be  an  extravagant  thing  to  demand  that  our 
men,  instead  of  serving  the  state  in  arms,  should  serve 
it  in  the  arts  that  preserve  and  develop  human  good  ? 
Instead  of  press-ganging  our  youth  for  the  bloody 
ends  of  battle,  let  them  be  allured  into  the  holy 
cause  of  agricultural  and  industrial  development.  Let 
every  young  man  be  invited  to  yield  a portion  of  his 
life  for  the  cultivation  of  public  lands,  making  of  public 
roads  and  harbors,  erection  of  public  buildings,  abolition 


368 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


of  public  nuisances,  reclaiming  waste  lands,  draining 
bogs,  trenching  moors,  demolishing  slums.  Let  our 
young  men  refuse  to  be  the  slaves  of  governors,  but 
offer  to  become  the  servants  of  society.  Let  them 
decline  to  be  trained  for  the  purpose  of  killing  their 
brothers,  but  demand  to  be  educated  in  order  to  make 
their  brothers  live  with  a life  more  abounding.  Let 
them  make  it  plain  that  they  do  not  desire  their  duty 
to  the  community  to  be  remitted,  but  only  that  it  be 
made  harmonious  with  the  ends  of  humanity  ; that  they 
will  serve  their  country  for  good,  but  no  longer  for 
evil,  as  their  contribution  towards  the  service  of  uni- 
versal man. 

As  a step  towards  this  glorious  servitude  to  humanity, 
it  may  be  found  necessary  to  resist  the  encroachments 
of  militarism  by  the  means  adopted  by  the  Quakers 
of  the  seventeenth  century  and  the  Russian  Doukho- 
bortsi  of  our  own,  — by  submission  to  fines,  imprison- 
ments, and,  in  the  last  resort,  death.  Even  in  that 
Anglo-Saxondom  which  has  boasted  of  its  freedom 
men  may  yet  be  driven  to  bind  themselves  in  a solemn 
league  and  covenant  against  the  rendering  of  military 
service  or  payment  of  military  taxes — and  to  take  the 
consequences.  The  culmination  of  militarism  in  con- 
scription makes  compromise  impossible,  forces  every 
citizen  to  make  choice  between  the  Prince  of  Peace 
and  Imperial  Baal.  The  question  will  soon  cease  to  be 
one  of  expediency  and  will  become  one  of  principle ; 
for  the  adoption  of  compulsory  service  is  a definite 
repudiation  of  spiritual  nature,  a deliberate  return  to 
pagan  ideals  — at  a time,  too,  when  arbitration  is  the 


TO  THE  CITIZEN 


369 


easy  alternative.  As  soon  as  the  mark  of  the  false 
prophet  is  visibly  inscribed  on  the  forehead  of  de- 
veloped men  and  free  citizens,  it  is  time  for  them  to 
stand  together  and  resist  “ even  unto  blood  ” — their 
own  blood,  not  the  blood  of  their  persecutors.  That 
they  may  not  become  murderers,  they  must  be  ready 
to  be  made  martyrs. 

That  state  which  has  ceased  to  foster  citizenship 
has  renounced  every  claim  to  the  allegiance  of  citizens. 
Men  who  regulate  their  civic  as  well  as  private  life  on 
moral  principle  can  be  under  no  obligation  to  support 
a government  which  deliberately  renounces  morals,  bas- 
ing itself  on  force ; which  spends  on  education  and 
culture  only  a fraction  of  what  it  spends  on  war  and 
murder ; which  everywhere  elevates  the  materialistic 
above  the  ethical  and  the  civic  ; which  puts  military 
regulations  over  the  Ten  Commandments,  and  the  Ad- 
ministration above  God.  Passive  resistance,  even  to  the 
point  of  martyrdom,  will  then  become  the  duty  of  all 
good  men.  There  can  then  be  no  question  of  uphold- 
ing the  cause  of  a country  which,  in  violating  the 
rights  of  other  countries,  has  abolished  her  own  ; which, 
in  crushing  the  freedom  of  other  citizens,  has  absolved 
her  own  from  fealty.  Public  wrongs  call  for  repudia- 
tion equally  with  private  wrongs  and  for  similar  refusal 
to  share  the  spoil.  A good  man  can  neither  fight  nor 
pay  to  maintain  the  “ honor  ” of  a nation  which  has 
become  systematically  dishonorable,  or  to  promote  the 
glory  of  a nation  whose  glory  has  become  her  shame. 
Citizenship  is  what  distinguishes  civilization  from  bar- 
barism ; and  he  who  would  not  consort  with  savages 


370 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


must  dissociate  himself  from  those  national  adventures 
whose  object  is  to  destroy  foreign  citizens  while  weak- 
ening democracy  in  the  home  land. 

Good  men  will  find  the  price  of  empire  greater  than 
they  care  to  pay ; not  so  much  in  men  or  money,  — for 
other  men  are  born  and  money  is  mere  dust  on  the 
scale,  — but  in  conscience,  justice,  mercy,  refinement, 
freedom.  When  in  the  name  of  empire  they  are  com- 
pelled to  kill  men  and  break  the  hearts  of  women,  devas- 
tate whole  quarters  of  the  globe,  lie,  and  break  all  the 
Commandments,  they  will  say  that  empire  is  too  dear 
at  the  price.  The  good  man  cannot  accept  it  on  those 
terms.  Unless  he  can  be  its  free  servant,  not  its  armed 
slave,  he  takes  no  pride  in  it,  feels  no  joy,  sees  no 
glory,  incurs  no  obligation,  longs  only  to  flee  from  it, 
saying  with  the  poet  Cowper : 

I could  endure 

Chains  nowhere  patiently,  and  chains  at  home, 

Where  I am  free  by  birthright,  not  at  all. 

When  that  point  is  reached  by  any  number  of  its 
citizens,  it  is  time  for  a country  to  pause,  think,  re- 
trace its  steps,  and  sin  no  more,  lest  a worse  thing  come 
upon  it. 

Truly,  when  its  cost  in  humanity,  ethics,  citizenship, 
international  good  will  is  counted,  this  golden  image 
of  imperialism  set  up  for  the  worship  of  the  modern 
nations  is  found  too  dear.  Not  only  does  it  divert  a gov- 
ernment from  its  proper  ends,  but  it  substitutes  a set 
of  ideals  which  can  terminate  only  in  fearful  disaster. 
It  opens  a devouring  maw  which  swallows  up  every 
new  source  of  revenue  whether  in  land  or  trade.  It 


TO  THE  CITIZEN 


371 


makes  feverish  efforts  to  restore  by  foreign  conquest 
what  it  loses  by  domestic  neglect,  thus  weakening  both 
the  limbs  and  the  heart  of  a people  and  hurrying  it  to 
that  doom  which  awaits  every  tyrant.  Herein  is  justified 
the  prophecy  of  a great  democrat,  — “Europe  will  perish 
at  the  hands  of  its  warriors.”  Yes,  and  the  words  of  a 
greater  democrat  than  Montesquieu  may  not  unfitly  be 
paraphrased  : “ Therefore  whatsoever  commonwealth 
heareth  these  sayings  of  mine,  and  doeth  them,  I will 
liken  it  unto  a wise  citizen,  who  built  his  citizenship  upon 
the  rock  of  international  brotherhood.  And  the  rain 
of  foreign  war  descended,  and  the  floods  of  domestic 
discontent  came,  and  the  winds  of  commercial  adversity 
blew,  and  beat  upon  that  house ; and  it  fell  not : for 
it  was  founded  upon  a rock.  And  every  empire  that 
heareth  these  sayings  of  mine,  and  doeth  them  not, 
shall  be  likened  unto  a foolish  citizen,  who  built  his 
house  upon  the  sand  of  militant  imperialism.  And  the 
rain  of  foreign  resistance  descended,  and  the  floods  of 
domestic  discord  came,  and  the  winds  of  colonial  sepa- 
ration blew,  and  beat  upon  that  house ; and  it  fell : and 
great  was  the  fall  of  it.” 

REFERENCES 

1.  The  New  Downing  Street.  The  entire  pamphlet  a wonder- 
ful exposition  of  the  fact  that  the  true  British  policy  is  peace. 

2.  J.  Lawson  Walton,  Q.C.,  M.P.,  Contemporary  Review , 
March,  1899. 

3.  Sir  Henry  Campbell-Bannerman,  M.P.,  quoting  Mr.  Dicey, 
November  24,  1899. 

4.  G.  W.  Steevens,  With  Kitchener  to  Khartoum. 

5.  Casa  Guidi  Windows,  Pt.  I,  line  702. 


372 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


6.  Mr.  Schurman,  New  Age , August  28,  1902. 

7.  Preface  to  Poems  before  Congress. 

8.  The  Biglow  Papers,  No.  VII. 

9.  Mr.  Andrew  Carnegie. 

10.  Mr.  W.  T.  Stead,  War  against  War , p.  84. 

11.  Lord  Rosmead,  ibid  (see  References,  Chap.  VIII,  Note  14). 

12.  Aborigines'  Friend , August,  1904. 

13.  Barrack  Room  Ballads,  “Mandalay.” 

14.  Sheriff  J.  Campbell  Smith,  Dundee. 

15.  Herbert  Spencer,  The  Study  of  Sociology,  p.  212. 

16.  The  South  African  Crisis. 

17.  Spectator. 

18.  Militarism  Hostile  to  Citizenship  (Manchester 
Guardian,  October  22,  1904): 

FIGHTING  THE  REVOLUTION 

{From  a C orrespondenf) 

The  following  report  which  was  recently  addressed  in  the  form  of  a 
confidential  document  to  the  commander  of  a division  of  the  Russian 
army  is  of  value  as  showing  the  extent  to  which  the  military  authorities 
have  become  alarmed  by  the  growth  of  revolutionary  propaganda  amongst 
the  troops.  The  document  is  numbered  “ 1 1 5,  On  Service,”  and  is  dated 
August  11  (24),  from  the  camp  at  Syrts,  in  the  south  of  Russia: 

To  the  Commander  of  the  Thirty-Third  Infantry  Division-.  I 
hereby  report  that  in  order  to  remove  the  possibility  of  illegal  and 
seditious  proclamations,  books,  and  pamphlets  finding  their  way 
into  the  midst  of  the  privates  of  my  regiment  I have  adopted  the 
following  measures : 

I.  — General 

1.  The  commanders  of  companies  have  been  requested 

(a)  To  acquaint  themselves,  by  questioning  every  private  and  push- 
ing the  inquiry  as  far  as  possible  into  details,  with  the  life  of  the  privates 
before  their  entry  into  service,  with  their  condition,  — that  is,  as  regards 
family,  property,  and  social  status, — -and  to  gain  an  accurate  knowledge 
of  all  changes  in  their  mode  of  life  that  may  have  taken  place  since 
their  entry  into  service. 

(i5)  To  find  out  precisely  with  whom  the  privates  correspond  (the 
contents  of  correspondence)  and  what  private  persons  they  visit  when 


TO  THE  CITIZEN 


373 


they  are  on  leave;  such  private  persons  must,  moreover,  apply  in  person 
to  the  commander  of  the  company  for  leave  for  a private  to  visit  them. 

(c)  To  collect  information  with  regard  to  the  political  trustworthi- 
ness of  those  persons  whom  privates  visit  when  on  leave,  and  in  the 
event  of  the  discovery  of  suspicious  circumstances  to  refuse  leave  of 
absence. 

( d ) To  watch  whether  the  privates  actually  visit  those  persons  who 
have  received  permission  to  receive  visits  from  them. 

2.  Commanders  of  companies  are  to  conduct  conversations  with  the 
privates  on  the  significance  of  the  soldier  as  a servant  of  the  Tsar,  on 
the  obligation  resting  upon  him  to  fulfill  this  lofty  vocation,  on  our  ene- 
mies at  home  and  their  seditious  and  destructive  activities,  and  on  the 
fulfillment  of  the  duty  of  service,  the  oath  of  loyalty  to  the  Tsar,  — all 
these  subjects  to  be  illustrated  by  examples.  The  conversations  shall 
be  conducted  not  less  than  twice  a month. 

3.  The  regimental  chaplain  shall  initiate  on  an  extensive  scale  con- 
versations on  the  duty  of  the  soldier  as  a Christian  in  relation  to  the 
Tsar,  Church,  and  country.  These  conversations  shall  be  conducted  at 
such  intervals  as  may  be  deemed  advisable  by  the  regimental  authorities. 

4.  Arrangements  shall  be  made  for  the  performance  by  the  soldiers 
of  plays  of  an  instructive  nature  on  days  of  leisure  (Christmas  and 
Easter  festivals). 

3.  In  every  company  the  practice  shall  be  established  of  singing  in 
chorus  songs  exalting  the  greatness  of  the  Tsar,  the  fatherland,  and  the 
work  of  a Russian  soldier  (a  choirmaster  will  be  engaged  by  the  regi- 
ment). 

6.  The  admission  of  visitors  shall  be  so  restricted  as  to  extend  only 
to  persons  closely  related  to  the  privates  (father,  mother,  sister,  uncle, 
aunt),  and  the  visits  shall  take  place  not  in  the  company’s  quarters  but 
in  the  dining  or  tea  rooms.  Visitors  shall  be  admitted  only  with  the 
permission  of  the  commander  of  the  company,  or,  in  his  absence,  that 
of  the  officer  on  duty  or  his  assistant. 

7.  All  privates  upon  their  return  from  leave  are  to  be  closely  searched. 

8.  [Outsiders  ?]  are  not  to  be  admitted  into  the  courtyard  of  the  bar- 
rack or  into  the  barrack  itself. 

9.  The  families  of  the  privates  who  live  in  barracks  are  to  receive 
from  the  commanding  officer  tickets  giving  them  fhe  right  of  entry. 

10.  No  member  of  the  families  of  privates  living  in  barracks  shall  be 
admitted  after  the  beating  of  the  evening  drum. 

11.  There  shall  be  stationed  in  the  courtyards  and  at  the  entrances 
to  the  staircases  of  those  barracks  which  have  courtyards  accessible  to 
private  individuals  special  guards  whose  duty  it  shall  be  to  see  that  any 
private  individuals  who  may  pass  through  the  courtyards  shall  not  throw 
about  papers  of  any  kind.  Every  person  who  does  throw  about  such 


374 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


papers  shall  be  arrested  and  brought  before  the  officer  on  duty  or  his 
assistant,  in  order  that  the  contents  of  the  paper  may  be  determined, 
and  in  the  event  of  these  proving  to  consist  of  a proclamation  the  per- 
son arrested  shall,  upon  the  order  of  the  officer  on  duty  or  his  assistant, 
be  conducted  to  the  police. 

12.  Not  less  than  twice  a month  a general  inspection  of  barracks, 
clothing,  and  beds  shall  be  made  without  warning;  partial  inspections 
of  a similar  kind  may  be  made  at  hazard  daily. 

1 3.  Leave  of  absence  shall  be  granted  only  with  the  permission  of 
the  commander  of  the  company. 

II.  — Partial  Measures 
In  Barracks 

(а)  In  the  barracks  of  the  regimental  staff  the  gate  leading  from  the 
street  shall  be  locked  with  a key,  and  only  such  private  individuals 
shall  be  admitted  as  are  furnished  with  the  written  permission  of  the 
regimental  officer  on  duty. 

(б)  Arrangements  shall  be  made  with  the  Municipal  Executive  for 
building  material  to  be  brought  in  by  the  back  courtyard  behind  the  fence 
stables.  (The  workmen  will  be  furnished  by  the  regiment.) 

(c)  There  shall  be  posted  in  the  back  courtyard  a sentinel,  whose 
duty  it  shall  be  to  see  that  no  private  individuals  climb  into  the  court- 
yard and  throw  papers  about. 

hi  Goldfarb' s House 

(a)  A fence  shall  be  built  on  the  garden  side.  (6)  The  window  of 
the  tea  room  opening  into  the  garden  shall  be  blocked  up.  ( c ) The  gate 
is  to  be  kept  locked. 

In  the  Camps 

Under  the  measures  enumerated  in  Regulations  1,  2,  6,  7,  12,  13,  the 
following  measures  have  also  been  taken : 

1.  The  admission  of  visitors  to  the  tents  is  forbidden.  Visits  take 
place  in  the  living  rooms. 

2.  No  visitor  or  traveler  is  allowed  to  walk  about  among  the  tents. 

3.  The  work  of  watching  the  movements  of  private  persons  who 
walk  along  the  officers’  line  has  been  intrusted  to  two  sentinels,  whose 
duties  are  indicated  ia  Regulation  n. 

4.  The  approach  of  cab  drivers  to  the  front  line  has  been  forbidden, 
and  civilians  have  been  forbidden  to  walk  there. 

5.  Next  year  walking  along  the  officers’  line  will  be  forbidden,  and 
will  be  permitted  only  along  the  back  way. 

Colonel  Kryloff,  Commander  of  the  Regiment. 

Lieutenant  Karsintsky,  Regimental  Aide-de-Camp. 


TO  THE  CITIZEN 


375 


19.  Richard  Cobden,  Political  Writings , Vol.  II,  p.  349  (ed. 
I9°3)- 

20.  Vorwdrts , February,  1899. 

21.  Mr.  Goschen,  M.P.,  First  Lord  of  the  Admiralty,  March, 
1899. 

22.  How  Militarism  edits  the  Newspapers: 

(a)  Methods  of  Barbarism,  p.  67. 

Stringent  measures  are  used  to  prevent  the  transmission  of  letters 
which  are  calculated  to  throw  any  light  upon  the  deeds  of  darkness  which 
were  being  perpetrated  at  the  seat  of  war.  The  story  of  the  way  in  which 
information  has  been  smuggled  across  the  frontier  recalls  the  worst  days 
of  reactionary  Europe.  Letters  are  carried  in  the  soles  of  boots ; they 
are  secreted  in  all  imaginable  receptacles;  private  soldiers  have  been 
warned  that  it  would  be  better  for  them  not  to  write  any  letters  at  all ; 
war  correspondents  have  been  banished,  excepting  those  favored  indi- 
viduals who  can  be  guaranteed  to  act  as  the  convenient  conduit  pipes 
for  official  information.  To  such  lengths  have  the  authorities  gone  that 
travelers  on  entering  or  leaving  the  Transvaal  have  been  given  the 
option  of  leaving  their  boots  behind  them  or  allowing  the  soles  to  be 
cut  open  in  order  that  the  authorities  might  be  satisfied  that  no  secret 
missive  was  being  carried  from  the  African  inferno  to  the  outside  world. 

(b)  What  is  now  being  done  in  South  Africa. 

All  newspaper  telegrams  from  the  seat  of  war  have  to  pass  the  cen- 
sorship of  British  officers,  who  often  appear  to  think  that  their  chief 
duty  as  censors  is  to  prevent  any  intelligence  reaching  the  British  pub- 
lic. Correspondents  who  tell  the  truth  frankly  find  endless  obstacles 
placed  in  their  way. 

(c)  New  Age , May  9,  1901. 

In  view  of  the  vindictive  and  monstrous  sentences  passed  on  the 
editors  of  newspapers  in  South  Africa,  and  the  suppression  of  all  news 
from  the  Cape,  it  is  as  well  that  the  public  should  know  how  Dutch 
women  and  children  are  being  treated.  Every  letter  from  the  Orange 
Free  State  and  Transvaal  has  to  pass  through  the  censor’s  hands,  and 
is  liable  to  be  burnt  by  “ a set  of  insufferable  cads,”  as  one  correspond- 
ent describes  them.  It  has  happened  that  owners  of  letters  from  Eng- 
land see  part  of  the  contents  in  one  of  the  government  newspapers 
before  they  receive  their  mutilated  letter.  It  is  a penal  offense  to  send 
any  letter  by  private  hands.  The  letters  detailing  the  sufferings  of  the 


3/6 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


women  and  children  have  to  be  taken  by  hand  from  up  country  to  Cape 
Town,  and  given  to  some  friend  on  board  the  mail  steamers.  Foreign 
steamers  are  the  safest. 

(d ) Loyal  Traitors , p.  255. 

On  the  17th  of  July,  1899,  the  staff  correspondents  of  American 
newspapers  stationed  in  Manila  stated  unitedly  in  public  protest : “ The 
censorship  has  compelled  us  to  participate  in  this  misrepresentation  by 
excising  or  altering  uncontroverted  statements  of  fact,  on  the  plea,  as 
General  Otis  stated,  that  ‘ they  would  alarm  the  people  at  home,’  or 
‘have  the  people  of  the  United  States  by  the  ears.’  ” 

23.  Government  by  Military  Proclamation. — Testi- 
monies : 

(a)  An  officer  in  the  field. 

Others  of  the  better  class,  wives  of  rich  farmers,  had  money,  and  left 
Pretoria,  confident  of  living  without  serious  privation  till  their  husbands 
or  fathers  returned  ; but  they  had  yet  to  count  with  the  military  gov- 
ernor of  Pretoria,  and  yet  another  stroke  of  misfortune  awaited  them. 
An  order  was  issued  forbidding  them  to  leave  their  farms  without  passes, 
and  passes  to  Pretoria  for  food  were  strictly  prohibited.  Evidently  it  is 
intended  to  force  the  men  to  surrender  by  starving  the  women. 

( b ) What  is  noiv  being  done  in  South  Africa. 

1.  The  principal  residents  of  the  towns  and  districts  are  to  be  held 
jointly  and  severally  responsible  for  the  amount  of  damage  done  in  their 
district. 

2.  Heavy  fines  are  to  be  inflicted,  and  the  receipts  for  all  goods  taken 
by  the  troops  to  be  cancelled. 

3.  The  principal  residents  may  be  forced  to  travel  on  the  trains. 

4.  The  houses  and  farms  in  the  vicinity  of  the  places  where  the  damage 
is  done  are  to  be  destroyed,  and  the  residents  in  the  neighborhood  dealt 
with  according  to  martial  law. 

(c)  Exact  text  of  a proclamation. 

NOTICE 

All  male  adults  in  the  township  of  Cradock  are  hereby  ordered  to 
attend  in  the  Market  Square  to-morrow  morning  at  a quarter  to  eleven 
to  witness  the  promulgation  of  the  sentence  of  death  to  be  passed  on 
Johannes  Petrus  Coetzee  for  high  treason  and  attempt  to  murder. 


TO  THE  CITIZEN 


377 


All  places  of  business  must  be  closed  from  half-past  ten  till  after  the 
promulgation  of  the  sentence. 

C.  C.  Wiseman  Clarke,  Major, 

, T , „ Commandant  Cradock  District. 

Thursday,  July  n,  1901. 


24.  Tyranny  of  Martial  Law.  — Testimonies: 

(a)  Martial  Law  Blue  Book,  pp.  46,  78,  54. 

Martial  Law  is  not  a Law,  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  term,  at  all.  . . . 
For  the  most  part,  what  is  done  under  Martial  Law  is  illegal.  . . . Martial 
Law  is  the  will  of  the  conqueror. 

(5)  “ A British  Officer  who  administered  it,”  Manchester 
Guardian , August  5,  1902. 

“The  pretty  and  humane  instructions  appearing  in  the  body  of  the 
work  were  not  given  ” to  the  officers,  but,  on  the  contrary,  they  were 
“ encouraged  through  the  orders  and  advice  received  to  act  severely 
rather  than  leniently.” 

(c)  Committee  on  South  African  Distress  Fund,  April,  1903. 

U nder  this  law,  “ Any  one  who  speaks  seditious  words,”  which  includes, 
“To  bring  the  Governor  into  contempt,”  “To  raise  discontent  and  dis- 
affection,” is  liable  to  five  years’  hard  labor  and  to  be  deported. 

(d)  Miss  Hobhouse,  Contemporary  Review,  October,  1901. 

The  present  method  of  keeping  them  [captive  women]  in  semi-disgrace 
till  they  acknowledge  their  husbands  and  sons  to  be  rebels  is  futile,  and 
it  is  worse.  A recent  telegram  from  the  Orange  River  Colony  stated  that 
strict  methods  were  going  to  be  taken  to  put  down  seditious  language  in 
the  Camps.  What  does  that  amount  to  ? It  means  that  women  cannot 
talk  together  of  the  prowess  of  their  men,  or  express  amongst  each  other 
hopes  for  their  success,  but  some  spy  (and  the  Camp  is  full  of  such)  reports 
their  natural  utterances,  and  punishment  is  enforced. 

25.  Press  Gang  by  Proclamation  : 

Testimony  of  Johannesbzirg  Gazette,  December  18,  1900,  quot- 
ing Military  Proclamation  No.  14. 

Calling  upon  all  British  subjects,  irrespective  of  age,  to  be  formed 
into  a force  known  as  the  “ Rand  Rifles,”  not,  mind  you,  simply  for  the 


378 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


protection  of  the  town,  but  for  active  military  service,  at  the  discretion 
of  the  military  governor. 

On  a careful  perusal  of  the  twenty  clauses  of  this  proclamation  (to 
which  every  Britisher,  unless  physically  incapacitated,  has  to  put  his  name), 
you  will  see  that  after  signing  this  document  we  are  bound  down  to 
whatever  the  authorities  may  consider  military  exigencies,  and,  according 
to  clause  12,  can  be  called  out  for  active  service  whenever  the  military 
governor  deems  fit,  when  we  then  come  under  the  Army  Act  the  same 
as  any  soldier  of  the  line. 

26.  Sidney  Low,  Nineteenth  Century , London,  September,  1899. 

27.  The  Crown  of  Wild  Olive , paragraph  38. 


XI 

THE  MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR  TO 
THE  PATRIOT 


We  are  inhabitants  of  two  worlds,  and  owe  a double,  but  not  a divided 
allegiance.  In  virtue  of  our  clay,  this  little  ball  of  earth  exacts  a certain 
loyalty  of  us,  while,  in  our  capacity  as  spirits,  we  are  admitted  citizens 
of  an  invisible  and  holier  fatherland.  There  is  a patriotism  of  the  soul 
whose  claim  absolves  us  from  our  other  and  terrene  fealty.  Our  true 
country  is  that  ideal  realm  which  we  represent  to  ourselves  under  the 
names  of  religion,  duty,  and  the  like.  Our  terrestrial  organizations  are 
but  far-off  approaches  to  so  fair  a model,  and  all  they  are  verily  traitors 
who  resist  not  any  attempt  to  divert  them  from  their  original  intend- 
ment. When,  therefore,  one  would  have  us  to  fling  up  our  caps  and 
shout  with  the  multitude,  “ Our  country , however  bounded ! ” he  demands 
of  us  that  we  sacrifice  the  larger  to  the  less,  the  higher  to  the  lower,  and 
that  we  yield  to  the  imaginary  claims  of  a few  acres  of  soil  our  duty  and 
privilege  as  liegemen  of  Truth.  Our  true  country  is  bounded  on  the 
north  and  the  south,  on  the  east  and  the  west,  by  Justice,  and  when  she 
oversteps  that  invisible  boundary  line  by  so  much  as  a hair’s  breadth, 
she  ceases  to  be  our  mother,  and  chooses  rather  to  be  looked  upon 
quasi  noverca.  That  is  a hard  choice,  when  our  earthly  love  of  country 
calls  upon  us  to  tread  one  path  and  our  duty  points  us  to  another.  We 
must  make  as  noble  and  becoming  an  election  as  did  Penelope  between 
Icarius  and  Ulysses.  Veiling  our  faces,  we  must  take  silently  the  hand 
of  Duty  to  follow  her.  — Lowell. 


XI 


THE  MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR  TO  THE 
PATRIOT 

When  King  Joash  bent  over  the  couch  of  dying 
Elisha  wailing  out  his  grief  in  the  pathetic  and  im- 
pressive words,  “ My  father,  my  father ! the  chariot  of 
Israel,  and  the  horsemen  thereof!”  he  recognized  the 
truth  that  its  good  men  are  a nation’s  best  defense, 
the  prophetic  spirits  who  keep  it  in  paths  of  righteous- 
ness truer  protectors  than  its  panoplied  hosts.  Pure 
religion  may,  in  the  end,  be  found  pure  statesmanship. 
To  risk  life  on  the  battlefield  is  not  the  only  form  of 
patriotism ; may  not  be  that  bespattered  thing  at  all, 
but  only  adventure,  excitement,  pugilism,  mercenari- 
ness, social  outlawry,  moral  cowardice,  or  other  squalid 
impulse.  Mazzini  was  at  least  as  good  a patriot  as 
Garibaldi ; Garrison,  as  Grant  ; Whittier,  as  Lincoln ; 
Gladstone,  as  Gordon.  Just  as  religious  speech  has 
frequently  held  it  easier  to  die  for  God  than  to  live  for 
Him;  or  for  Christ,  or  Buddha,  or  Humanity;  so  it 
may  be  held  more  difficult  to  live  nobly  and  unselfishly 
for  one’s  country  than  to  die  for  it  on  foughten  field, 
more  sacrificial  to  preserve  it  from  aggression  and  un- 
holy strife  than  to  run  with  its  multitudes  to  shed  inno- 
cent blood.  History  is  rich  in  types  of  patriotism  which 
consisted  in  resisting  the  immediate  and  narrow  policy 
of  a sect  for  the  sake  of  some  greater  and  wider  good, 


382 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


— more  anxious  to  remove  domestic  sins  than  to  fight 
foreign  sinners ; nay,  if  things  came  to  the  worst, 
deliberately  chose  to  die  by  the  hands  of  countrymen 
rather  than  live  to  support  their  ignoble  policies,  — 
like  Mrs.  Browning’s  Riego  : 

And  he  who  lived  the  Patriot’s  life, 

Was  dragged  to  die  the  traitor’s  death! 

The  martyr  is  nobler  than  the  murderer,  the  reformer 
than  the  fighter.  Judged  even  by  the  brute  standard, 
it  requires  more  courage  to  face  the  clamor  of  one’s 
neighbors  than  the  cannon  of  an  enemy ; yet  so  irra- 
tional still  is  man  that  the  citizen  who  does  the  former 
will  be  deemed  a coward  and  a traitor,  while  he  who 
does  the  second  will  be  esteemed  a patriot,  though  but 
diplomatic  and  a courtier  or  stupid  and  a clodhopper. 
It  is  the  higher  character  which  makes  its  slow  appeal 
to  reason  and  moral  sense ; the  lower  which  smites 
hastily  with  the  sword.  The  smaller  mind  must  have 
quick  returns,  rapid  strokes,  dramatic  effects ; the 
larger  can  be  patient,  take  long  ways  round,  wait  de- 
velopments of  conviction  and  character, — looks  more 
to  the  printing  press  than  to  the  Gatling  gun  and 
would  rather  write  a book  than  fire  a shot,  believing 
that  “Gutenberg’s  gun  has  the  longest  range.” 

War,  as  the  instrument  of  empire,  accompanies  ag- 
gression abroad  with  persecution  at  home,  and  sets  in 
motion  a multitude  of  influences  to  terrorize  and  silence 
those  who  desire  to  see  their  country  greatly  good,  — 
who  resist  domestic  wrong  for  the  sake  of  foreign  right. 


TO  THE  PATRIOT 


383 


John  Stuart  Mill  thought  that  even  when  the  world 
was  unanimous  and  right,  dissentients  might  still  have 
something  to  say  by  which  truth  would  be  gainer ; but 
the  war  system  demands  that  dissent  be  crushed  and 
free  speech  suppressed,  promulgates  a decree  that 
every  citizen  must  support  the  government,  right  or 
wrong,  and  sanctions  the  penalties  of  popular  fury, 
organized  injustice,  and  even  future  torment1  against 
those  who  refuse  to  sacrifice  their  convictions  to  expe- 
diency. It  is  better  for  the  righteous  that  their  blood 
should  flow  by  the  hands  of  war-frenzied  mobs,  egged 
on  by  the  Iagos  2 of  press,  parliament,  and  army,  than 
that  they  should  give  conscience  into  the  keeping  of 
the  legislature  and  incur  the  damage  of  war  to  their 
own  moral  nature ; for,  says  Thoreau,  “ is  there  not  a 
sort  of  blood  shed  when  the  conscience  is  wounded  ? 
Through  this  wound  a man’s  real  manhood  and  immor- 
tality flow  out,  and  he  bleeds  to  an  everlasting  death.” 
War  demoralizes  the  common  patriot  by  teaching  him 
to  rely  on  passion  rather  than  justice,  on  force  rather 
than  reason  ; and  by  encouraging  him  to  put  interest 
above  honor,  glory  above  righteousness,  and  territorial 
aggrandizement  above  human  fraternity.  It  creates  a 
shouting  provocativeness,  — the  frothy  patriotism  of 
Shimei  who  curses  loud  and  long,  the  nagging  patri- 
otism of  Gashmu  who  plots  and  dogmatizes ; as  distin- 
guished from  a silent  devotion,  — the  strong  patriotism 
of  Saul  who  holds  his  peace,  the  purposeful  patriot- 
ism of  Nehemiah  who  goes  quietly  about  to  build  the 
wall.  War  is  responsible  for  the  pirate  patriot  whose 
fool  eyes  are  in  the  ends  of  the  earth,  who  neglects 


384 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


his  own  garden  in  order  to  annex  his  neighbor’s  vineyard, 
who  is  so  dissatisfied  with  his  own  land  that  he  is  ever 
on  the  watch  to  thieve  another’s,  and  who  reaches  the 
acme  of  wrong  by  persecuting  any  kinsman  who  loves 
his  land  so  well  that  he  is  content  to  abide  peaceably 
within  its  borders.  It  is  the  pirate  patriot  who  preaches 
the  absolute  duty  of  seeking  the  interests  of  one’s  coun- 
try even  at  the  expense  of  others,  and  the  imperative 
necessity  of  discarding  the  principles  of  justice  and 
magnaminity ; and  who  thereby  brings  a fair  word  into 
such  disrepute  that  good  men  are  sometimes  almost 
tempted  to  expunge  it  from  their  vocabulary.  Every 
good  man  bears  it  as  a mark  of  his  very  goodness  that 
he  is  willing  to  admit  himself  at  fault,  to  apologize  for 
and  repair  an  error  of  conduct  as  far  as  possible ; and 
even  in  the  very  midst  of  a quarrel  or  a lawsuit  he  is  con- 
sidered magnanimous  who  can  cry  “halt,”  confessing 
his  own  fault  or  forgiving  that  of  his  opponent.  It  is  only 
when  we  come  to  the  international  sphere  that  a weigh- 
ing of  evidence  is  counted  unpatriotic,  a confession  of 
wrong  cowardly,  and  judgment  for  the  other  side  treason. 
No  sooner  has  patriotism  reached  this  stage  than  it 
becomes  dishonor,  and  every  good  man  is  absolved  from 
political  allegiance  by  virtue  of  his  fealty  to  the  higher 
standard  of  humanity  which  teaches  the  duty  of  loving 
neighbors  equally  with  self,  and  enemies  equally  with 
neighbors.  Even  if  payment  of  Caesar’s  taxes  be  per- 
mitted, it  is  imperative  that  conscience,  intelligence, 
faith,  truth,  and  such  higher  things  be  rendered  to  God 
alone.  Loyalty  to  conscience  takes  precedence  of  loyalty 
to  country.3  Fighting  patriotism,  however,  demands 


TO  THE  PATRIOT 


385 


God’s  portion  as  well  as  Caesar’s,  promulgates  the  im- 
moral and  antihuman  doctrine  that  it  is  traitorous  to 
express  difference  of  opinion  from  a belligerent  govern- 
ment, and  sets  itself  up  as  a fetich  to  be  worshiped  by 
men  of  low  intellectual  development,  or  an  hypocrisy  to 
be  cunningly  assumed  by  men  of  low  morale  for  the  sake 
of  gain.  It  demands  that  when  war  still  looms  through 
the  mists  of  diplomacy,  no  word  of  dissent  shall  be 
spoken  lest  it  should  hinder  a favorable  settlement ; 
nor  after  war  has  broken  out,  lest  it  should  encourage 
the  enemy ; nor  till  all  is  over,  and  it  is  too  late  to  save 
the  victim  ; and  it  resents  with  inconceivable  ferocity 
any  utterance  of  sentiments  which  might  impair  the 
prestige  of  its  murderous  designs.4  At  such  times 
freedom  of  opinion  and  of  speech  come  to  an  end,  or 
have  to  be  asserted  in  the  teeth  of  “ clenched  antago- 
nisms.” A new  Test  Act  is  imposed  by  the  Iagos  of 
the  printing  offices,  and  enforced  by  Bill  Sikes  at  the 
head  of  rowdy  mobs.  The  right  of  public  meeting  is 
abolished  by  mob  law.  Municipal  authorities  forbid  the 
holding  of  peace  meetings  even  in  the  open-air  forum 
of  their  city.  Town  halls  are  closed  against  whole  groups 
of  citizens.  Even  the  temples  dedicated  to  the  service 
of  the  Prince  of  Peace  will  not,  or  dare  not,  open  their 
doors  to  the  messenger  of  peace.  Public  halls  either 
cannot  be  hired  at  all  for  the  deliverance  of  opinions 
contrary  to  the  war  policy,  or  only  after  extravagant 
guarantees  against  damage  that  may  be  inflicted  by 
infuriated  “patriots”  ; and  the  doors  have  to  be  manned 
and  fortified  by  those  who  desire  merely  to  show  reason 
for  dissenting  from  the  policy  of  the  day.5  Friends  of 


386 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


peace  who  are  not  prepared  to  fight  literally  for  their 
liberties  are  driven  to  meet  in  private  houses  and 
secret  conventicles,  like  Christians  under  the  Empire. 
Assaults  on  private  persons  and  houses  keep  pace  with 
attacks  on  public  meetings.  Nor  do  the  authorities 
extend  protection  to  such  citizens,  but  only  a formal 
and  ineffective  show  of  protecting  the  person  while 
ostentatiously  refraining  from  preserving  those  liber- 
ties which  are  dearer  than  life.  Murderous  onslaughts 
upon  peaceable  persons  and  gatherings  are  palliated  by 
the  press,  winked  at  by  the  police,  waived  aside  in  par- 
liament. Intoxicated  ruffians  who  drink  themselves 
drunk  with  beer,  shout  themselves  hoarse  with  war 
songs,  and  furiously  assault  peaceful  citizens,  wake  up 
in  various  police  cells  to  be  carried  before  “ patriotic  ” 
magistrates,  patted  benignly  on  the  back,  and  dis- 
missed with  encomiums  cunningly  worded  to  sound  like 
cautions.  The  man  who  declines  to  go  with  the  war 
of  the  day  is  counted  unworthy  of  citizenship  and  is 
reckoned  both  a social  leper  and  a political  pariah.6 
Thus  does  war  advance  us  along  the  path  of  slavery, 
— slavery  for  the  sake  of  empire.  “ My  country  right 
or  wrong  ” is  only  an  enlarged  version  of  “ my  business 
right  or  wrong,”  a maxim  which  would  damn  a pedler, 
and  cannot  glorify  a patriot.  To  say  that  a citizen  be- 
cause a certain  land  has  borne  and  nourished  him  is 
on  that  account  bound  to  indorse  all  its  quarrels  is  as 
immoral  as  to  say  that  he  must  stand  by  and  see 
murder  if  the  murderer  happens  to  be  his  father,  or 
theft  if  the  thief  chances  to  be  his  mother,  — is,  in  short, 
a doctrine  of  scoundrels,  not  citizens ; of  pirates,  not 


TO  THE  PATRIOT 


387 


patriots  ; of  antisocial  bandits,  not  brothers  of  the  equal 
races.  “ Patriotism  ” is  a bait  flung  out  by  rogues  to 
catch  fools. 

It  is  time  to  restrict  terms,  or  to  define  things.  Here 
is  a politician  who  picks  a quarrel  in  order  to  steal  a 
neighboring  country,  a preacher  who  brings  the  lofty 
sanctions  of  religion  to  foment  hate  and  justify  mur- 
der, an  editor  who  stands  by  his  government  “ right 
or  wrong,”  a crowd  which  smashes  windows  and  breaks 
up  public  meetings,  — for  all  of  whom  the  adjective 
“patriotic”  is  reserved  ; while  the  epithet  “traitor”  is 
applied  to  that  politician  who  stands  for  international 
justice,  that  preacher  who  enunciates  the  loftier  laws 
of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven,  that  pressman  who  seeks 
to  guide  public  opinion  along  lines  of  truth  and  equity, 
that  citizen  who  refuses  to  join  the  saturnalia  of  flag 
waving  and  ditty  shouting.  How  is  this  ? Why  should 
a man  who  prevents  his  children  from  revolting  against 
the  laws  of  chemistry  and  blowing  up  the  domicile  be 
compelled  to  rejoice  when  his  country  revolts  against 
the  equally  immutable  laws  of  justice  ? Why  should  it 
be  treasonable  to  oppose  a policy  of  national  suicide, 
and  loyal  only  to  sit  silent,  or  to  assist  actively,  whilst 
madmen  tie  a rope  round  our  common  mother’s  neck  to 
drag  her  into  the  eternal  abyss  ? This  is  not  patriot- 
ism ; it  is  madness,  — or  can  escape  being  esteemed 
madness  only  by  submitting  to  be  called  downright 
villainy.  It  is  national  felony ; a curse  and  scourge  to 
whatever  people  adopts  it ; an  instigation  to  the  foul- 
est crimes  and  an  apology  for  the  greatest  tyrannies. 
It  was  patriotism  of  this  type  that  poisoned  Socrates, 


388 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


crucified  Jesus,  and  sent  thousands  of  Christians  to  the 
lions  under  the  Caesars.  It  is  political  atheism. 

Suppression  of  free  speech,  however  serious  a hurt 
to  love  of  country,  is  only  a symbol  of  and  prelude  to 
other  losses.  Imperialism,  bringing  in  its  train  mili- 
tarism and  conscription,  confronts  the  people  with 
the  question  whether  they  are  to  be  governed  by  their 
governors  or  whether  they  will  govern  themselves 
according  to  the  formula  of  democracy.  The  choice, 
in  set  terms,  is  between  serfdom  and  self-government, 
bureaucracy  and  home  rule,  Caesarism  and  democracy. 
In  proportion  as  the  former  advance  the  latter  recede  : 
the  two  things  represent  contrary  tendencies  which 
admit  of  no  reconciliation,  of  which  India  and  Australia 
are  symbols.  The  motto  Imperium  et  Libertas  merely 
combines  in  a phrase  two  positively  antagonistic  ideas. 
A people  may  have  empire  without  liberty,  or  liberty 
without  empire  ; both  they  cannot  have.  Already  impe- 
rium begins  to  swallow  up  libertas.  The  fetters  may  be 
forged  by  an  Augustus,  or  gilded  by  a Beaconsfield ; 
worn  voluntarily,  or  unconsciously:  the  one  thing 
certain  is  that  citizen  merges  into  soldier,  state  into 
army ; and  freedom  perishes.  The  inhabitants  of  a 
country  may  be  constitutionally  assured  of  equal  jus- 
tice, supremacy  of  civil  over  military  power,  freedom  of 
person  and  speech  and  vote,  yet  see  the  constitution 
cunningly  evaded,  gracefully  waved  aside,  or  bluntly 
repudiated,  according  to  the  character  and  position  of 
the  assailant.  So  long  as  they  refuse  to  answer  her 
call  and  hasten  anew  to  her  defense,  they  will  see 


TO  THE  PATRIOT 


389 


Democracy  steadily  undone,  while  caste,  bureaucracy, 
officialism,  and  irresponsible  dictatorship  erect  them- 
selves upon  her  ruins.  The  governing  classes,  — ad- 
ministrators, soldiers,  and  other  dictatorial  people,  — 
who  caught  the  trick  of  despotism  over  a conquered 
proletariat  abroad,  return  to  practice  it  upon  an  emas- 
culated proletariat  at  home ; and  may  be  trusted  to 
rehearse  in  the  kingdom  the  lessons  they  learned  in 
the  empire.  Imperialism  is  a veritable  school  for 
tyrants,  and  its  trend  even  in  countries  otherwise  free 
and  constitutionally  governed  is  strongly  towards  dic- 
tatorship. 

During  these  late  years  British  and  American  autoc- 
racy have  enhanced  their  prestige  and  influence,  while 
democracy  has  gone  back  in  corresponding  degree.  The 
executive  exalts  itself  against  the  representatives.  The 
hereditary  House  of  Lords  has  successfully  defied 
the  representative  House  of  Commons.  The  throne 
has  exhibited  new  signs  of  authority.  The  cabinet  has 
proved  its  power  to  bring  the  country  to  war  without 
consultation ; the  Administration,  without  authority 
from  Congress7;  and  ministers  have  shown  that  during 
their  term  of  office  their  power  is  practically  unlimited 
and  irresponsible.  Representative  government,  meager 
as  are  the  remnants  of  its  power,  is  made  weaker  still 
by  the  domination  of  wealth  and  class,  its  membership 
in  general  being  composed  of  foreign  investors,  capi- 
talistic magnates,  professional  tufthunters,  aspiring 
officials,  — a body  whose  interests  are  not  popular  but 
financial  and  administrative,  yet  cunning  enough  to 
yoke  the  democratic  voter  to  the  car  of  imperialism. 


390 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


In  theory  Demos  controls  senate  and  parliament  and 
thus,  nominally,  army  and  navy  ; but  somehow  army 
and  navy  are  available  only  to  back  the  extravagances 
of  Dives,  never  to  supply  the  needs  of  Lazarus,  who, 
after  every  turn  of  the  ballot  box,  is  bewildered  to  find 
himself  still  the  under  dog.  Hunger  is  exploited  in  ever 
new  and  ingenious  ways  by  Mammon.  The  banners 
of  returning  tyranny  are  already  streaming  on  the  wind. 
The  tramp,  tramp,  of  the  sappers  and  miners  of  free 
institutions  comes  nearer  and  nearer.8  As  a result  of 
popular  education  and  cheap  literature  every  modern 
war  gives  rise  to  a vast  outpouring  not  only  of  maga- 
zines and  newspapers  but  of  books  ably  written  by 
officers  and  war  correspondents  under  the  spell  and 
glamour  of  the  military  spirit,  all  deferring  to  the  dis- 
cipline and  temper  of  the  army  as  the  nation’s  ideal, 
all,  expressly  or  by  implication,  glorifying  that  habit  of 
blind  obedience  to  rules  and  orders  which  is  the  sworn 
foe  of  thought  and  self-government.  The  ominous 
desire  for  a dictator  has  already  been  voiced,  partly 
in  jest,  it  is  true,  but  also  partly  in  earnest ; and  it  is 
time  to  challenge  the  aspiration,  for  it  is  the  way  of 
such  utterances  to  fulfill  themselves,  the  joke  disappear- 
ing before  the  serious  purpose,  the  feeler  preparing  the 
way  of  the  policy  as  the  tentacles  of  an  octopus  herald 
the  entire  monster.  Imperialistic  government  is  always 
and  everywhere  of  the  same  kind.  It  still  requires  the 
legionaries  of  Caesar,  and  inevitably  terminates  by 
putting  Caesar  upon  the  throne.  Liberty  calls  aloud 
upon  democracy  to  retrace  its  steps  along  the  “ prim- 
rose path  of  dalliance,”  to  renounce  that  patriotism 


TO  THE  PATRIOT 


391 


whose  means  are  foreign  aggression  and  whose  ends 
are  domestic  slavery. 

There  is  no  need  to  despair  of  democracy  as  if  it  had 
been  tried  and  found  wanting;  like  Christianity  it  never 
has  had  a fair  trial,  but  has  always  been  cheated  cun- 
ningly out  of  its  patrimony.  Imperialism,  it  is  true, 
has  dug  the  grave  of  every  democracy  the  world  ever 
produced ; but  modern  democracy  is  the  product  of 
ethical  development  even  more  than  of  purely  political 
forces  and  may,  on  that  account,  hope  to  evade  the 
doom  of  the  ancients.  But  it  can  escape  only  by  dis- 
carding the  gravedigger  — imperialism  — and  throwing 
away  the  spade  — militarism.  The  sign  of  its  heavenly 
grace  is  that,  unlike  the  old-world  democracies,  it  has  had 
a revelation  of  international  union  and  universal  brother- 
hood : if  it  is  true  to  the  heavenly  vision  it  will  be  saved  ; 
but  if  it  repents  not  of  its  unfraternal  jealousies,  aggres- 
sive selfishness,  and  undemocratic  militarisms,  it  will 
likewise  perish.  Such  is  the  frightful  demoralization 
wrought  in  the  patriot  by  the  spirit  of  war  that  it  repeat- 
edly transforms  him  from  a citizen  into  a corsair,  from  a 
democrat  into  a despot ; turns  love  of  country  into  lust 
of  conquest ; . and  degrades  that  very  Elijah  who  de- 
fended Naboth  into  the  Ahab  who  steals  his  vineyard. 

Our  military  system  has  now  reached  such  a stage  that 
it  is  no  longer  possible  to  evade  the  choice  between  home 
and  abroad,  development  and  expansion,  legitimate  do- 
mestic policy  and  bastard  colonization.  We  are  called  on, 
in  short,  to  decide  between  commonwealth  and  empire. 
The  politicians,  for  the  most  part,  have  lurched  heavily 


392 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


toward  the  latter  ; for  it  is  their  nature  to  walk  by  sight, 
not  by  faith,  and  the  gravitation  of  a fact  as  tremendous 
as  an  American  or  a British  empire  pulls  them  help- 
lessly towards  itself,  overpowering  thought  and  imagina- 
tion, engrossing  every  energy  and  resource,  burdening 
them  so  heavily  with  its  responsibilities,  obligations, 
dangers,  as  to  render  them  incapable  of  weighing  in  the 
balance  the  sufferings,  necessities,  possibilities  of  one 
continent  however  vast,  or  of  one  little  island.  Pride  of 
possession  swells  out  into  insolence,  courage  rises  into 
defiance,  greed  creates  greater  appetite,  and  the  fly  on 
the  wheel  of  empire  feels  himself  justified  in  putting  on  a 
bold  front,  — whether  to  growing  hunger  and  discontent 
at  home  or  to  gathering  jealousies  and  federating  rival- 
ries abroad.  The  awful  fascinations  of  empire  draw  him 
on  with  the  words  “ inevitable  ” and  “ destiny  ” upon  his 
lips,  — a political  fatalist,  a governmental  Calvinist,  a re- 
jecter of  that  free  will  which  makes  both  men  and  nations 
masters  of  their  fate,  and  which  alone  can  prevent  the 
stronger  influence  absorbing  all  the  smaller  interests, 
as  the  mackerel  swallows  the  sprat  but  the  shark  both. 

A colossal  object  lesson  has  been  presented  to  our 
day.  That  government  responsible  for  the  most  disas- 
trous British  war  of  modern  times  took  office  with  a 
promise  of  rest  to  a harassed  country,  an  assurance  to 
the  weary  Titan  of  “ a little  sleep,  a little  slumber,  a 
little  folding  of  the  hands  to  sleep,”  but  actually  pro- 
duced nothing  save  a succession  of  alarums  and  excur- 
sions. It  could  not  do  otherwise.  When  it  declined  to 
take  the  path  of  domestic  reform  it  was  obliged  to  go 
the  way  of  foreign  conquest.  The  choice  confronting 


TO  THE  PATRIOT 


393 


all  modern  rulers  is  just  that,  — reformation  or  war, 
social  progress  or  scientific  slaughter.  There  is  no 
middle  way,  nor  any  standing  still ; the  pull  from  the 
side  of  empire  is  too  enormous,  and  can  be  counter- 
acted only  by  a decided  movement  towards  the  oppo- 
site pole  of  endeavor.  A government  that  is  not  to 
slidder  down  into  the  pit  of  foreign  aggression  and  dis- 
aster must  toilfully  climb  the  long  slow  spiral  of  reform 
and  improvement  at  home.  To  run  empire  against 
kingdom  is  fatal,  and  to  run  them  in  double  harness 
impossible.  The  choice  is  between  the  universe  and  the 
hearthstone ; between  an  imperialism  which  includes 
different  continents,  a heterogeneous  and  indigestible 
mass  of  tribes,  colors,  tongues,  religions,  civilizations, 
permitting  no  organic  unity,  sharing  no  common  senti- 
ment, moving  to  no  conscious  goal,  having  no  embodi- 
ment higher  or  more  living  than  the  page  of  an  atlas, 

— between  this  and  an  amor  patrice  which  cherishes 
home  life  and  reverences  the  home  feeling  in  other 
races.  It  is  high  time  for  our  dreamers  to  wake  ; to 
return  from  a policy  of  imperialistic  expansion  to  one 
which  may  best  be  described  by  a Carlylean  compound 

— the  “development-of-the-people”  policy.  That  patri- 
otism which  leans  on  force  is  a degraded  thing ; and  if 
this  be  no  argument  to  those  who  care  less  for  honor 
than  for  interest,  let  them  know  that  it  is  also  a dan- 
gerous thing.  ’T  is  those  only  whose  ways  please  God 
whose  enemies  are  made  to  be  at  peace  with  them. 

The  injurious  effect  of  war  upon  the  patriot  is  fatally 
displayed  in  turning  away  his  eyes  from  the  true  path 


394 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


of  national  salvation  to  wild,  chimerical,  adventurous, 
and  ultimately  destructive  schemes  of  national  expan- 
sion,— schemes  as  seductive  but  as  suicidal  as  those  of 
Richard  the  Lion-heart  who  spent  the  years  of  his  reign 
fighting  Saracens  and  prosecuting  absurd  Crusades 
upon  the  sands,  while  Englishmen  starved  and  these 
islands  sliddered  down  into  a state  of  unspeakable  misery 
and  destitution.  Crusading  patriotism  spends  the  re- 
sources of  the  people,  not  upon  their  fields  and  rivers, 
unfilled  plains  and  undrained  bogs,  wasting  agricul- 
tures and  waning  industries,  but  upon  arms  and  arma- 
ments to  defend  that  which  is  steadily  becoming  less 
worth  defending  or  to  extend  that  which  is  becoming 
less  worth  extending.  This  is  the  senseless  statesman- 
ship which  first  permits  the  food  supplies  of  a country 
to  languish  through  successive  generations,  then,  in  a 
paroxysm  of  “patriotism,”  declares  that  it  must  have 
command  of  the  seas  in  order  to  guard  its  imported  food 
supplies,  and  finally  squanders  upon  defending  the  pas- 
sage of  these  across  the  sea  as  much  as  would  feed  its 
population  from  its  own  soil  twice  over  ; which  is  all 
as  absurd  as  if  a man  were  to  let  half  his  garden  lie 
waste,  expend  half  the  yield  of  the  remainder  in  buying 
produce  from  his  neighbor  on  the  right,  and  the  remain- 
ing fourth  in  building  wagons  and  rearing  watchdogs 
to  convey  the  purchased  fraction  safe  from  the  depre- 
dations of  his  neighbor  on  the  left.  Folly  like  this 
drives  all  but  the  wisest  to  despair.  We  first  decline 
to  raise  corn  and  fruit  from  our  own  soil,  then  pay 
away  enormous  sums  for  other  people’s  corn  and  fruit,9 
next  spend  unimaginable  wealth  in  building  ships  to 


TO  THE  PATRIOT 


395 


effect  and  guns  to  cover  their  transit,  lastly  point  to 
the  immense  turnover  as  convincing  proof  of  our  afflu- 
ence ! And  warriors  are  all  the  time  urging  us  to 
develop  this  state  of  affairs,  to  spend  less  upon  the 
production  of  internal  food  supplies  and  more  upon 
external  defenses.  Even  when  they  do  give  a thought 
to  the  question  of  the  people’s  food,  it  is  not  to  suggest 
the  production  of  living  grain  by  development  of  agri- 
culture and  employment  of  healthful  laborers,  but  the 
accumulation  of  dead  grain  in  enormous  storehouses 
which  could  only  become  centers  of  bloodshed  in  that 
coming  day  when  our  stupendous  policy  of  depletion 
shall  have  turned  crowds  of  starving  laborers  into  mobs 
of  red  rioters.  Imperial  Rome  brought  from  Egypt  and 
elsewhere  those  supplies  of  corn  which  in  better  days 
she  had  grown  for  herself,  sending  one  part  of  her  pop- 
ulation abroad  to  live  by  pillage  and  crowding  the 
remainder  into  towns  to  live  in  an  artificial  fashion 
upon  imported  food;  nor  has  modern  imperialism  grown 
wiser;  it,  too,  prefers  to  base  itself  upon  the  devil  work 
of  destruction  — calling  it  “defense”  — rather  than  on 
the  divine  work  of  production. 

The  “responsibilities  of  empire”  (which  are  defined 
as  the  colonies,  India,  and  the  trade  routes)  demand 
that  the  British  army  and  navy  be  made  adequate  to 
meet  whatever  military  or  naval  force  might  put  them 
in  peril.10  Thus  is  the  very  brain  stuff  spattered  all 
abroad  under  plea  of  maintaining  the  nervous  system. 
Expansion  abroad  is  accompanied  by  contraction  at 
home,  — arrest  of  social  progress,  shrinkage  of  agricul- 
ture, reduction  of  population,  perishing  of  rural  workers 


396 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


by  rheumatism  and  dullness  in  the  parishes  where  they 
were  born,  or  their  drifting  into  the  slums  to  perish. 
Imperialism  is  the  fool  who  has  her  eyes  in  the  ends 
of  the  earth  ; she  has  no  thought  for  the  multiplying 
crowds  of  landless  proletarians,  no  policy  for  restoring 
to  the  land  the  heaped  masses  who  are  filling  her 
expanding  cities  with  poverty,  crime,  filth,  disease. 
Neither  can  she  see  the  necessity  of  building  along 
her  iron  coasts  harbors  of  refuge  for  her  brave  sailors 
and  fishermen  who  perish  needlessly  by  the  hundred 
every  year  ; she  proposes  only  to  sink  more  millions  in 
what  she  calls  “coast  defenses,”  in  rivers  which  need 
never  be  attacked  or,  being  attacked,  can  never  be  prop- 
erly defended,  in  fortifications  just  formidable  enough 
to  invite,  without  being  strong  enough  to  repel,  attack. 
Meanwhile,  sailors  must  fill  watery  and  unhonored 
graves  that  soldiers  may  fill  foreign  graves  with  their 
own  or  native  corpses ; and  fishermen  must  drown  and 
fisheries  dwindle  that  patriots  may  ruffle  it  before  admir- 
ing audiences  of  political  dames.  Imperialistic  patriotism 
is  assuredly  not  the  instinctive  mother  but  the  senseless 
stepmother  of  a people  ; one  who  prefers  to  exploit  other 
lands  rather  than  develop  her  own,  to  build  battle  ships 
rather  than  homes,  to  sweep  the  seas  rather  than  the 
slums,  to  turn  the  veldts  red  rather  than  the  meadows 
green,  to  make  cordite  rather  than  grow  corn,  to  pension 
the  fighter  rather  than  the  toiler,  to  drill  rather  than  edu- 
cate, to  provide  camps  and  shooting  ranges  rather  than 
schools,  colleges,  polytechnics,  labor  settlements,  model 
farms.  To  call  this  unnatural  monster  by  Lowell’s  title  is 
to  compliment  her  : she  is  not  so  much  as  a stepmother ; 


TO  THE  PATRIOT 


397 


she  is  a baby-farmer  whose  profit  is  in  her  children’s 
deaths.  No  country  can  be  great  and  prosperous  unless, 
and  in  proportion  as,  its  inhabitants  are  peaceful,  cheer- 
ful, contented,  healthy,  satisfied  with  the  provisions  of 
bounteous  Nature ; unless  it  is  a home  which  its  chil- 
dren can  love,  — where  they  have  taste  and  leisure  to  go 
about  its  great  rooms  — its  seas,  woods,  mountains  — 
and  learn  to  admire  their  beauty.  The  honest  lover  of 
his  country  is  he  who  endeavors  to  make  the  home  land 
homelike,  the  fatherland  fatherly,  the  motherland  moth- 
erly ; which  cannot  be  done  by  expansion  and  foreign 
war,  but  only  by  the  arts  proper  to  the  spade  and  plow. 
The  tyrant  Pyrrhus,  describing  the  conquests  he  in- 
tended to  make  in  Italy,  Sicily,  Libya,  and  Greece,  was 
asked,  “ And  when  we  have  conquered  all  these,  what 
are  we  to  do  then?”  His  laughing  reply — “Why, 
then  we  will  take  our  ease,  and  drink  and  be  merry  ” 
— brought  the  unanswerable  retort,  “And  why  can  we 
not  repose  and  be  merry  without  these  conquests  ? ” 
Pyrrhus  must  now  yield  to  the  plowman.  Extensive 
exploitation  must  now  give  place  to  intensive  cultiva- 
tion. The  only  motto  for  a country  whose  rulers  even 
distantly  apprehend  the  sum  of  human  good  is  not 
defiance,  not  even  defense,  but  development. 

Such  a country  will, — to  quote  some  words  written 
by  the  present  writer  in  the  Westminster  Review ,u  — 
“above  all,  renounce  a strumpet  imperialism  with  all 
the  bedizenments  which  prank  her  out,  and  return  to 
nationalism,  its  lawful  love;  will  wash  the  paint  and 
tear  the  paddings  off  the  charmer ; will  show  that  the 
path  of  dalliance  leads  inevitably  to  extravagance  abroad 


39§ 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


and  impoverishment  at  home,  to  the  dominance  of 
military  ideals  and  the  consequent  decay  of  the  ideals 
of  industry,  to  the  exaltation  of  the  soldier  over  the 
citizen,  to  a deceptive  expansion  of  the  outer  circle  and 
a too  real  contraction  of  inner  resources  ; will  denounce 
an  imperialism  which  sinks  the  nation  in  the  empire, 
and  proclaim  a nationalism  which  exalts  the  nation 
that  it  may  maintain  the  empire  ; will  bring  the  British 
people  back  from  a policy  which  squanders  means,  men, 
and  morals,  abroad,  to  a policy  which  fosters  the  home 
life,  develops  the  men,  cultivates  the  fields,  expands  the 
industries  of  these  British  Islands;  and,  by  making  the 
base  of  our  operations  strong,  sufficient,  self-supporting, 
give  the  surest  warrant  of  success  and  safety  to  our 
movements  abroad.” 

How  much  longer  will  the  monumental  follies  of 
imperial  aggression  continue  to  masquerade  as  the 
highest  political  wisdom  ? How  long  shall  a military 
system  which  is  the  bitterest  foe  to  civilization,  and  an 
imperialism  which  is  traitor  to  humanity,  be  permitted 
to  waste  the  earth  and  spoil  the  people  ? For  it  is 
reliance  on  force,  a consciousness  of  resistless  power 
behind,  that  makes  possible  these  stupendous  follies 
and  sins.  It  is  the  knowledge  of  brute  force  backing 
annexation  that  encourages  the  monstrous  policy  of 
hazarding  the  dearest  interests  of  a people  for  foreign 
conquest,  foreign  markets,  foreign  produce.  Were  the 
possibility  of  supplying  their  wants  by  pillage  removed 
from  the  calculations  of  civilized  states,  they  would 
take  the  same  pains  to  cultivate  their  fields  and  popu- 
late their  lands  that  they  now  take  to  waste  the  plains 


TO  THE  PATRIOT 


399 


and  bereave  the  homes  of  other  lands ; would  cease  to 
forge  chains  for  their  own  citizens  in  the  very  act  of 
destroying  the  liberties  of  citizens  abroad  ; would  spend 
upon  the  diffusion  of  knowledge  and  the  blessings  of 
peace  those  sums  now  worse  than  wasted  on  munitions 
and  operations  of  war  ; would  lay  aside  those  military 
ideals  which  surely  destroy  their  moral,  intellectual, 
and,  finally,  political  life,  and  which  build  their  own 
guilty,  however  glittering,  tombs. 

Imperial  patriotism,  after  persuading  a people  to 
abandon  home  cultivation  for  the  sake  of  distant  con- 
quest, proves  itself  a hollow  betrayer  even  on  its  own 
ground ; for  with  slight  exception  it  does  not  attempt 
to  cultivate  the  lands  and  peoples  it  has  subdued,  but 
seeks  only  to  exploit  and  plunder  them.  Its  aim  is  not 
genuine  colonization  by  the  spade  and  plow,  but  utili- 
zation by  all  the  means  and  instruments  rapacity  can 
invent.  It  fells  virgin  forests,  but  plants  not ; exhausts 
virgin  soil,  but  fertilizes  none  ; digs  for  gold,  but  delves 
not  for  grain ; builds  railways  for  its  traffic,  but  traffics 
only  for  greed  ; forces  the  native  to  work,  but  for  its 
gain,  not  his  good  ; exploits  but  rarely  educates  him  ; 
makes  him  a laborer  without  creating  him  a man;  fills 
the  land,  not  with  schoolmasters,  industrial  instruct- 
ors, humanists,  but  with  capitalistic  agents  and  official 
persons  making  haste  to  be  rich  by  the  swift  and  swol- 
len spoils  of  extortion  rather  than  by  the  slow  fruits 
of  culture  and  development  : in  short,  utterly  despises 
the  original  command  which  alone  can  give  sanction 
and  warrant  to  distant  adventure,  — the  command, 


400 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


namely,  to  subdue  the  earth  by  the  sweat  of  the  brow, 
making  it  fruitful,  — preferring  rather  to  subdue  the 
peoples  of  the  earth  by  their  blood  and  their  sweat, 
burying  the  bloody  half  in  shallow  graves  and  the 
sweaty  half  in  deep  pits  and  mines  to  slave  for  dia- 
monds and  gold  : of  all  which  the  only  extenuating 
word  that  can  be  spoken  has  been  spoken  by  Pope12: 

Yet,  to  be  just  to  these  poor  men  of  pelf, 

Each  does  but  hate  his  neighbor  as  himself ; 

Damned  to  the  mines,  an  equal  fate  betides 
The  slave  that  digs  it,  and  the  slave  that  hides. 

In  no  realm  and  under  no  conditions  can  there  be 
harmony  between  the  principles  of  empire  and  absolu- 
tism on  the  one  hand,  and  of  commonwealth  and  democ- 
racy on  the  other  : the  first  imply  alien  government, 
absentee  landlordism  on  a vast  scale ; the  second,  self- 
government,  moral  and  political  development,  a people 
rooted  in  the  soil.  The  password  of  the  first  is  con- 
quest ; of  the  second,  cultivation  — by  colonization  if 
need  be.  The  first  includes  cruel  subjugation  of  unwill- 
ing peoples  in  enormous  numbers,  a cynical  selfishness 
which  seeks  commercial  gain  at  the  cost  of  the  moral 
welfare  of  native  tribes,  a brutish  blindness  which  exter- 
minates unpruned  races  through  whose  wild  stocks  alone 
can  new  sap  and  fruitfulness  enter  the  body  of  human- 
ity ; the  second  implies  reclamation  of  untilled  lands  by 
colonists  who  afterwards  live  on  them,  and  the  human- 
izing of  the  barbarians  by  the  arts  of  peace.  The  first  is 
a mere  descent  of  soldier,  trader,  official  person  upon 
uncivilized  races  to  turn  them  into  food  for  empire  — 


TO  THE  PATRIOT 


4OI 


to  live  upon  the  people ; the  second  is  a genuine  family 
settlement  for  the  subduing  of  the  earth  — to  live  upon 
the  land.  The  first  represents  mere  quantity,  bulk,  vul- 
gar mileage  and  counting  of  heads,  mechanical  painting 
of  maps,  an  officially  directed  huddle  of  inharmonious 
personalities  and  incongruous  civilizations;  the  second 
implies  quality,  moral  values,  realized  ideals  of  life 
according  to  laws  of  historic  development  and  under 
the  influence  of  self-government.  The  first  is  repre- 
sented by  a plague-cursed,  famine-stricken  India;  the 
second  by  a wholesome,  divinely  hopeful  Australia. 

The  friends  of  man  are  called  to  stand  for  cultiva- 
tion abroad  instead  of  exploitation  ; and  everywhere  for 
commonwealth  as  against  empire.  Empire  is  a name 
of  pride  — the  pride  that  goes  before  destruction  ; com- 
monwealth includes  all  that  is  best  in  politics,  eco- 
nomics, and  the  humanities.  Henceforth  we  stand  for 
commonwealth  ! 

The  stand  for  commonwealth  is  made  for  humanity, 
its  general  principle  of  action  being  to  promote  what- 
ever contributes  to  the  common  weal  — the  common 
well-being  of  man,  and  its  particular  application  being 
to  those  sections  of  humanity  called  nations.  Common- 
wealth necessarily  includes  an  indefinite  number  of 
commonwealths.  “This  policy,”  says  Mazzini  in  his 
essay  on  the  condition  and  prospects  of  Europe,  “ is 
that  of  nationalities,  that  which  will  protect  openly  and 
avowedly  their  free  development.”  The  principle  of  na- 
tionality promotes  peace  by  extending  the  bounds  of 
international  toleration,  and  by  creating  that  love  of 
general  liberty  and  that  respect  for  freedom  everywhere 


402 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


which  is  at  the  bottom  of  all  healthy  political  activity. 
It  throws  responsibility  for  good  government  upon 
those  persons  who  actually  live  in  each  country, 
thus  promoting  order  and  self-reliance,  permitting  free 
development  to  each  separate  portion,  fostering  institu- 
tions native  to  the  temper  and  ideals  of  the  people,  and 
permitting  every  kind  of  peaceful  pioneering  in  the 
arts,  the  sciences,  and  religion.  Imperialism,  by  con- 
trast, through  unjust  annexation  of  territory  creates  a 
necessity  for  alien  and  usurped  authority  and  the  de- 
struction of  native  institutions,  paralyzes  local  effort, 
prevents  the  highest  development  of  resources,  reduces 
the  motives  that  tend  to  order1  and  good  government 
and  increases  those  that  make  for  rebellion  ; rebellion, 
again,  is  made  the  excuse  for  trampling  yet  further  the 
sentiment  of  nationality;  from  which  in  turn  come  new 
insurrections  and  a train  of  such  miseries  and  disasters 
as  find  a hundred  bitter  illustrations  in  the  page  of  his- 
tory. The  difference  between  the  divine  principle  of 
nationalism  and  a domineering  imperialism  is  revealed 
in  the  fragrance  which  arises  from  such  names  as 
Wallace,  Tell,  Kosciusko,  Kossuth,  Mazzini,  Garibaldi, 
Stepniak,  Washington,  and  the  sulphur  emitted  by 
the  Alexanders,  Caesars,  Tamerlanes,  and  Bismarcks. 
Henceforth  the  prayer  of  the  democrat  and  humanist  is 
for  the  downfall  of  the  golden-headed  but  clay-footed 
image  of  imperialism  and  the  furtherance  of  nationalism 
in  every  quarter  of  the  globe ; for  whereas  the  former 
has  been  found  to  work  havoc  and  war  continually,  the 
second  will  be  found  to  merge  gently  but  inevitably  into 
philanthropy.  The  developed  ideals  and  varied  quests  of 


TO  THE  PATRIOT 


403 


the  nationalities  will  enrich  human  character  with  new 
types  and  bind  human  beings  in  new  bonds  ; will  lead 
to  neighborly  intercourse,  mutual  respect,  cooperation 
for  common  ends,  and  ultimately  to  a commune  of  peo- 
ples in  schemes  of  universal  beneficence.  The  idols  of 
the  tribe  (the  absurd  conceits  and  prejudices  which 
have  kept  the  nations  jealously  apart)  must  fall  before 
humanity’s  God,  the  All-Father  who  made  of  one  every 
nation  of  men  for  to  dwell  on  all  the  face  of  the  earth. 

It  is  time  for  every  good  man  to  repudiate  the  nar- 
rower sense  of  the  thing  called  “patriotism,”  even  if  it 
be  found  necessary  to  repudiate  the  word  itself,  and  to 
strive  to  carry  tribal  sentiment  up  to  that  fraternity 
cherished  in  dream  and  song,  and  actually  realized  by 
some  of  the  wisest  of  the  race.  Patriotism  of  the  lower 
type  is  kept  alive  by  war  and  by  a permanent  military 
system,  and  opposes  the  passion  of  empire  to  the  enthu- 
siasm for  humanity,  sets  pinchbeck  against  principle, 
glory  against  godliness,  gold  against  goodness,  surface 
against  depth.  From  war  that  patriotism  derives  its 
being  which  substitutes  force  for  reason,  interest  for 
justice,  jealousy  for  cooperation,  sectionalism  for  uni- 
versalism  ; which  keeps  alive  the  idea  that  it  is  permis- 
sible to  commit  murder  in  order  to  avoid  martyrdom, — 
to  inflict,  in  order  to  escape,  death.  In  proportion  as  it 
ceases  to  rely  on  force  patriotism  will  rise  into  phi- 
lanthropy, and  love  of  country  expand  into  love  of 
humanity.  Fraternity  is  a bigger  thing  than  patriot- 
ism. The  nation  is  but  the  avenue  through  which 
we  approach  humanity ; the  fatherland  the  door  into 


404 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


the  universal  world.  Great  as  well  as  comforting  were 
the  words  written  by  Edmund  Ludlow  over  his  door 
during  exile: 

Every  land  is  my  fatherland, 

For  all  lands  are  my  Father’s. 

Imperialism  must  now  yield  to  humanism ; and  as 
religion  has  striven  to  teach  men  the  sin  of  gaining  at 
the  expense  of  a neighbor,  it  must  go  on  to  show  that 
national  advance  upon  a sister  nation’s  ruins  is  equally 
abhorrent.  Nations  are  but  members  of  the  human 
family  ; nothing  that  is  human  is  alien  to  them  ; none 
can  live  to  itself  alone ; each  is  bound  to  seek  the  com- 
mon good,  to  spread  common  knowledge,  to  cultivate 
mutual  intercourse,  respect,  and  toleration.  “ If,”  says 
Mrs.  Browning  again,  in  her  preface  to  “ Poems  before 
Congress,”  “patriotism  be  a virtue  indeed,  it  cannot 
mean  an  exclusive  devotion  to  our  country’s  interests, 
— for  that  is  only  another  form  of  devotion  to  personal 
interests,  family  interests,  or  provincial  interests,  all  of 
which,  if  not  driven  past  themselves,  are  vulgar  and 
immoral  objects.”  This  is  the  tribal  egoism  surviving 
even  in  American  pulpits,  where  peace  sermons  may 
be  delivered  in  the  course  of  which  the  preacher  defends 
almost  every  war  his  country  ever  entered  into.  The 
name  for  this  kind  of  thing  is  parochialism,  not  patri- 
otism. It  is  the  parish  of  Little  Peddlington  perking 
up  beside  the  republic  of  God.  The  crowning  test  of 
patriotism  is  respect  for  the  same  sentiment  in  other 
nations;  just  as  proof  of  domestic  faithfulness  is 
regard  for  the  domestic  sanctity  of  other  homes.  As 
it  is  not  love,  but  lust,  which  causes  a man  to  overleap 


TO  THE  PATRIOT 


405 


the  sacred  barriers  of  a brother’s  home,  so  it  is  not 
patriotism,  but  pride,  which  tramples  upon  the  sense 
of  nationality  in  other  peoples.  If  true  patriotism  be 
love  of  one’s  own  land,  false  patriotism  must  be  love 
of  another’s  land.  It  is  not  by  fighting  against  other 
countries  that  we  learn  to  love  our  own,  but  by  living 
for  all.  Enlightened  citizenship  perceives  that  there  is 
a solidarity  of  nations  ; that  the  law  of  each  for  all  and 
all  for  each  represents  at  once  the  highest  policy  and 
the  noblest  morality ; that  each  country  is  intimately 
bound  up  with  the  prosperity  of  the  whole ; that  the 
general  progress  of  society  affects  and  determines  the 
progress  of  each  part ; that  the  best  citizen  is  the  man 
who  labors  to  promote  the  liberty  and  improvement  of 
every  community.  To  every  good  man  Gerizim  is 
sacred  as  Jerusalem  ; and  both  must  yield  to  the  higher 
claims  of  the  spiritual  and  invisible  commonwealth  of 
humanity,  as  of  the  sons  of  God. 

A great  fight  of  faith  is  before  the  righteous  to-day, 
and  in  the  days  coming  on.  He  must  stand  for  honesty, 
neighborliness,  justice,  mercy,  peace,  against  the  red 
tide  that  courses  through  the  world.  For  the  remainder 
of  his  natural  existence  he  must  fight,  not  against  flesh 
and  blood,  but  against  principalities  and  powers,  against 
the  rulers  of  this  world,  against  spiritual  wickedness  in 
high  places,  against  imperialism  and  the  thing  called 
“patriotism,”  against  capitalism  and  plutocracy,  — dark 
powers  which  have  already  corrupted  the  ruling  classes, 
and  will  next,  unless  vanquished  by  the  higher  forces  of 
righteousness,  corrupt  democracy,  and  finally  vanquish 
the  commonwealth.  Against  the  righteous  man  are 


406  moral  damage  of  war 

the  gods  of  vested  interests,  the  idols  of  international 
jealousy,  and  the  dour  devil  called  apathy.  For  him 
are  the  three  chief  ministers  of  human  progress,  — the 
logic  of  history,  good  men,  God.  The  moral  evolution 
of  mankind  is  away  from  patriotism  of  the  old  political 
and  fighting  order,  and  away  from  piety  that  makes 
itself  subservient  to  political  institutions.  Eulogies  of 
the  old  fighting  patriots  become  fainter.  Progress  is 
seen  to  lie  along  the  lines  of  international  cooperation. 
Religion  is  coming  to  mean  those  aspirations  which  are 
common  to  the  human  race.  The  world  has  less  and 
less  need  for  its  warriors.  A higher  type  of  man  is  tak- 
ing the  place  of  the  militant  hero.  While  the  armies 
are  growing  bigger,  man’s  faith  in  them  is  becoming 
smaller.  The  whole  trend  of  human  character  is  towards 
the  ethical  and  the  spiritual.  The  animal  decreases; 
the  man  increases.  Apologies  for  war  are  more  numer- 
ous, excuses  more  necessary,  justifications  more  urgent. 
Man  is  becoming  ashamed  of  it.  The  peace  advocate 
unites  himself  with  the  evolutionary  forces.  Like 
Abraham  Lincoln  he  asks  himself  on  what  side  God  is, 
and  goes  to  that  side.  The  destruction  of  war  is  a sure 
prophecy,  and  therefore  a main  object  of  his  endeavor. 
War  must  be  cleared  out  of  the  way  of  the  advancing 
humanity.  The  first  enemy  that  must  be  destroyed 


is  — war. 


TO  THE  PATRIOT 


407 


REFERENCES 

1.  Future  Penalties  invoked  against  the  Peace 
Advocate : 

A clergyman  to  W.  T.  Stead,  War  against  War  in  South 
Africa , p.  163. 

Your  pamphlets  are  thrown  into  my  waste-paper  basket.  I regard 
you  as  one  of  the  greatest  enemies  of  your  country,  and  I shall  ever 
pray  that  Almighty  God  will  punish  you  both  here  and  hereafter  for  it. 

2.  Iago  inciting  the  Mob  to  attack  Peace  Advocates  : 

( а ) Admiral  Commerell,  Morning  Post. 

If  this  gentleman  thinks  he  is  in  the  right,  let  him  call  an  open  meet- 
ing, . . . and  express  the  views  he  had  demonstrated  in  your  paper  of 
to-day,  and  I don’t  think  much  of  body  or  mind  would  be  left  to  the 
plotter. 

(б)  The  People , London,  February,  1900. 

After  describing  bloody  attacks  upon  peace  men  — “ Doubtless 
to-morrow  will  witness  similar  scenes  should  any  of  the  orators  seek  to 
disparage  [the  government  or  its  military  minions].” 

(c)  Globe , June  19,  1901. 

We  trust  that  such  a protest  will  be  offered  to-night  as  will  convince 
the  friends  of  the  enemy  that  in  trying  to  hold  meetings  in  London  they 
are  doing  a very  foolish  thing  ; and  if  it  persuades  them,  in  addition,  that 
they  have  no  proper  place  among  Englishmen  at  all,  no  great  harm  will 
be  done. 

(</)  Times , March  7,  1887. 

In  times  not  yet  remote  they  would  assuredly  have  been  impeached 
for  one  tithe  of  their  avowed  defiance  of  the  law,  and  in  ages  yet  more 
robustly  conscious  of  the  difference  between  evil  and  good,  their  heads 
would  have  decorated  the  city  gates. 

(e)  Mornitig  Post , April  18,  1901. 

The  mob  must  clear  its  lungs  somehow,  and  blow  off  its  superfluous 
steam,  ...  a few  worthy  creatures  . . . might  even  now  be  languishing 
where  I,  for  one,  would  be  well  content  to  see  them,  — in  the  Tower 
dungeons,  or  their  skulls  — perish  the  thought ! — might  have  been 
grinning  down  Fleet  Street  from  poles  stuck  into  the  pediment  of  the 
Griffin. 


408 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


(/■)  “ Colonist,”  in  Pall  Mall  Gazette , October  9,  1901. 

Is  there  any  other  instance  in  ancient  or  modern  history  where  a nation 
being  at  war,  the  government  has  allowed  its  subjects  to  write  and  spout 
treason  in  its  capital  ? . . . Let  the  government  . . . pass  a law  that  will 
effectually  put  a stop  to  it.  The  government  majority  is  sufficient  to  do 
anything ; . . . the  country  will  back  them. 

(g)  Sun , March  2,  1900. 

BOERS  AT  EXETER  HALL 

Last  night  the  town  was  swept  by  a wave  of  war  enthusiasm  unknown 
in  this  country  since  the  fall  of  Sebastopol.  To-night  the  Pro-Boers  think 
a judicious  time  to  hold  a “ Stop  the  War  ” Convention  at  Exeter  Hall  ! 

Dr.  Leyds’s  friends  met  in  committee  this  afternoon,  and  the  con- 
vention will  be  held  at  seven  o’clock  to-night,  when  resolutions  sympa- 
thizing with  the  Boers,  and  calling  upon  the  government  to  stop  the  war 
at  once,  will  be  moved.  This,  coming  on  the  top  of  the  capture  of  Cronje 
and  the  relief  of  Ladysmith,  seems  calculated  to  strain  the  peaceable 
disposition  of  Londoners.  It  will,  indeed,  appear  powerfully  like  treason 
to  meet  thus  publicly  and  condemn  the  war  — at  least,  to  those  who  have 
brothers  and  fathers  and  relatives  who  have  been  fighting  and  dying  for 
their  country  at  the  front. 

The  “Stop  the  War”  Convention  should  not  be  allowed  to  pass 
without  a strong  protest  by  the  public.  We  presume  that  the  meeting 
will  be  an  open  one,  and  that  discussion  will  be  invited.  In  that  case, 
the  people,  who  rejoiced  exceedingly  last  night,  can  maintain  their 
enthusiasm  by  going  to  Exeter  Hall  to-night  and  showing  that  Pro- 
Boer  sentiments  are  not  popular.  A protest  in  legitimate  and  constitu- 
tional form  is  needed,  and  it  is  to  be  hoped  that  it  will  be  forthcoming. 
Mr.  Kruger  and  his  agents  have  mistaken  the  psychological  moment,  if 
we  are  not  mistaken. 

3.  Example  of  Lord  Chatham  : 

“In  such  a war  as  this  [against  the  American  Revolutionists],  un- 
just in  its  principles,  impracticable  in  its  means,  and  ruinous  in  its  con- 
sequences, I would  not  contribute  a single  effort  nor  a single  shilling.” 
He  also  invited  Benjamin  Franklin  to  his  house,  introduced  him  to  the 
House  of  Commons,  and  expressed  his  love  and  admiration  for  “ our 
brethren  in  America,  Whigs  in  principle,  and  heroes  in  conduct.” 

4.  Mr.  Keeling,  speaking  of  W.  T.  Stead,  War  against  War  in 
South  Africa , p.  123. 

He  could  not  trust  himself  to  speak  of  such  a dastardly  individual, 
so  he  would  confine  himself  to  remarking  that  a millstone  should  be  tied 
about  his  neck,  and  he  should  be  cast  into  the  depths  of  the  sea. 


TO  THE  PATRIOT 


409 


5.  Public  Meeting  Abolished  by  Mob  Law: 

Methods  of  Barbarism,  p.  46. 

On  the  following  Monday  Miss  Hobhouse  was  to  have  spoken  at  the 
Queen’s  Hall  in  London.  Owing  to  the  violence  of  the  organized  attack 
made  by  the  jingoes  upon  the  Merriman-Sauer  meeting  held  in  the  same 
place  on  the  previous  Wednesday,  the  lessee  of  the  hall  canceled  his 
contract  and  refused  to  allow  Miss  Hobhouse  the  use  of  his  building. 
A proposal  to  allow  her  to  speak  at  Westminster  Chapel  was  frustrated 
by  the  veto  of  the  church  committee,  which  feared  to  expose  the  chapel 
to  the  attack  of  the  mob. 

See  Chap.  I,  p.  45,  and  note. 

See  also  War  against  War  in  South  A frica , p.  362  ; New  Age , 
March  8,  1900  ; and  the  entire  British  press  of  1900- 1901. 

The  hideous  experiences  of  that  time  burned  an  undying  fear  and 
hate  of  war  into  the  souls  of  multitudes.  The  present  writer  was  stoned 
in  the  streets  of  the  city  where  he  labors;  had  a peace  meeting  in  his 
church  buildings  broken  up  with  damage  to  the  properties,  and  had  his 
house  attacked  by  a mob  two  thousand  strong.  An  open-airpeace  meet- 
ing in  a neighboring  city  was  broken  up  within  twenty  yards  of  the 
police  station  and  in  presence  of  the  entire  police  staff,  and  he  was  stoned 
through  the  city  all  the  way  to  the  railway  station.  Women  looked  on 
and  laughed.  His  experience  was  that  of  hundreds.  — W.  IV. 

6.  Social  and  Political  Ostracism  : 

(a)  Pall  Mall  Gazette,  September  30,  1901. 

If  a man  cannot  see  the  justice  of  the  British  cause  in  South  Africa, 
he  must  be  so  blind  to  patent  facts  that  his  eyes  cannot  be  trusted  to  be 
of  the  slightest  service  to  his  country  in  any  circumstances  whatever. 

(b)  Senator  Fraser,  South  Melbourne. 

They  knew  the  war  was  a righteous  one;  but,  if  it  were  not,  they 
should  still  stick  to  the  flag  all  the  same.  Those  who  said  otherwise 
were  more  than  Pro-Boers,  — they  were  traitors.  They  should  be  marked 
men,  and  should  not  be  put  into  any  public  position. 

7.  Raymond  L.  Bridgman,  in  Loyal  Traitors,  p.  27. 

Weeks  before  the  treaty  of  Paris  had  been  signed,  and  while  it  was 
yet  wholly  uncertain  whether  the  U.S.  Senate  would  ratify  the  treaty, 
while  the  Filipinos  occupied  toward  us  the  attitude  of  allies  who  had 
assisted  us  by  their  army  in  effecting  the  conquest  of  Spain,  the  Admin- 
istration, regardless  of  the  rights  of  the  case,  without  proven  necessity 


4io 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


and  without  any  authority  from  Congress,  proceeded  to  make  war  upon 
the  Philippine  people.  \Et  seqi] 

8.  Congrcgationalist,  Boston,  September,  1898. 

The  Rev.  W.  T.  Perrin,  one  of  the  ablest  of  the  Methodist  clergymen 
of  Boston,  defended  the  annexation  of  Porto  Rico,  Hawaii,  and  any  other 
Spanish  possessions,  holding  that  the  people  of  the  country  are  realizing 
the  absurdity  of  the  clause  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence  which 
says  that  government  derives  its  just  powers  from  the  consent  of  the 
governed.  . . . The  logic  of  events  has  made  it  our  duty  to  do  so,  and 
duty  is  greater  than  theory.  Government  derives  its  powers  from  God, 
and  God  alone,  and  the  nations  are  responsible  to  Him. 

9.  Resources  of  the  Home  Land  Squandered  Abroad  : 

Richard  Cobden,  Political  Writings , Vol.  II,  p.  523  (ed.  1903). 

This  floating  capital  [as  opposed  to  capital  already  invested  and 
therefore  unavailable,  and  than  which  it  is  necessarily  much  smaller, 
and  therefore  to  be  carefully  husbanded],  from  which  all  new  demands, 
whether  for  the  support  of  armies  and  navies,  or  of  railway  excavators, 
must  be  satisfied,  is  probably  larger  in  positive  amount  in  our  day  than 
at  any  former  time ; but  never  before  did  it  bear  so  small  a comparative 
ratio  to  the  fixed  capital  of  the  country  and,  consequently,  never  was  the 
danger  so  great  of  inflicting  heavy  loss  upon  the  capitalists,  or  such  wide- 
spread sufferings  upon  the  laborers,  by  absorbing,  for  purposes  of  war, 
that  floating  capital  without  which  our  mills  and  furnaces,  our  steam 
engines,  docks,  and  railways  become  as  valueless  as  if  the  timber  and 
iron  of  which  they  are  constructed  were  still  in  their  native  mines  or 
forests,  and  deprived  of  which  our  millions  of  skilled  laborers  would  be 
as  destitute  in  the  midst  of  all  this  fixed  capital  as  if  it  had  no  existence. 

10.  A.  J.  Balfour,  House  of  Commons,  March,  1899. 

1 1.  June,  1899. 

12.  Moral  Essays,  Epistle  III,  line  107. 


XII 

THE  MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR  TO 
THE  REFORMER 


I found  Him  in  the  shining  of  the  stars, 

I mark’d  Him  in  the  flowering  of  His  fields, 

But  in  His  ways  with  men  I find  Him  not, 

I waged  His  wars,  and  now  I pass  and  die. 

O me!  for  why  is  all  around  us  here 
As  if  some  lesser  god  had  made  the  world, 

But  had  not  force  to  shape  it  as  he  would, 

Till  the  High  God  behold  it  from  beyond, 

And  enter  it,  and  make  it  beautiful  ? 

Or  else  as  if  the  world  were  wholly  fair, 

But  that  these  eyes  of  men  are  dense  and  dim, 

And  have  not  power  to  see  it  as  it  is  : 

Perchance,  because  we  see  not  to  the  close ; — 

For  I,  being  simple,  thought  to  work  His  will, 

And  have  but  stricken  with  the  sword  in  vain; 

And  all  whereon  I lean’d  in  wife  and  friend 
Is  traitor  to  my  peace,  and  all  my  realm 
Reels  back  into  the  beast,  and  is  no  more. 

My  God,  thou  hast  forgotten  me  in  my  death  : 

Nay — God  my  Christ  — I pass  but  shall  not  die. 

Tennyson. 


XII 


THE  MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR  TO  THE 
REFORMER 

“The  Passing  of  Arthur”  may  be  interpreted  as  an 
expression  of  the  fact  that  empire  — even  benevolent 
empire  — based  on  force  and  built  up  by  the  sword  — 
even  a reforming  sword  — is  nothing  but  an  instrument 
of  spoliation  to  the  wicked  and  heartbreak  to  the  good, 
thus  far  voicing  a grave  warning  to  all  empire  builders  : 
may  be  read,  further,  as  a parable  of  the  modern  re- 
former’s disillusionment,  since  he,  being  simple,  thought 
to  work  His  will  in  peaceful  ways,  but  finds  all  he 
leaned  on  in  state  and  church,  even  in  wife  and  friend, 
traitor  to  his  peace,  while  all  his  laboriously  built  up 
projects  reel  back  into  the  beast,  and  are  no  more  : 
yet,  finally,  embodies  a grand  prophecy  of  ultimate  tri- 
umph, immortal  hope,  and  eternal  life,  since  all  great 
purposes  and  noble  reforms  pass,  but  cannot  die. 

Never  did  silence  and  despair  yearn  more  than  to-day 
for  the  filling,  thrilling  sound  of  the  prophet’s  organ 
voice.  Reformers  who  are  yet  in  the  heyday  of  their 
career  have  suffered  a vast  disappointment.  Twenty, 
ten  years  ago,  they  were  dreaming  dreams  and  seeing 
visions  all  but  incorporated  into  the  stuff  of  life,  all  but 
woven  into  the  woof  and  warp  of  sociology  and  politics  : 
interest  in  forward  movements  was  keen,  agitation 

413 


4I4 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


strong,  hope  high,  literature  earnest,  newspapers  pur- 
poseful, labor  leaders  to  the  front,  politicians  active, 
churchmen  eager ; and  it  appeared  as  if  a single  step 
would  bring  society  to  a height  such  as  makes  epochs 
in  the  upward  march  of  man. 

These  visions,  hopes,  activities,  culminated  at  the 
close  of  the  nineteenth  century  — in  a summer  which 
smiled  upon  a Peace  Crusade  and  a Peace  Conference, 
but  with  the  swiftness  of  an  infernal  kaleidoscope 
frowned  into  an  autumn  of  horror,  bloodshed,  and  dis- 
grace. Never,  perhaps,  in  the  history  of  man  was  a 
greater  contrast  presented  to  the  ideal  sense  than  be- 
tween that  summer  and  that  autumn.1  The  Peace  Cru- 
sade and  Conference  of  summer  betokened  the  soaring 
height  to  which  rose  alike  the  reformer’s  vital  hopes 
and  the  worldling’s  seared  hypocrisy ; while  the  war 
which  followed  in  autumn  measured  the  depth  of  the 
disappointment  into  which  unselfishness,  and  the  dam- 
nation into  which  selfishness,  were  plunged  in  Great 
Britain.  The  first  represented  the  high-water  mark  of 
Christendom’s  air-blown  enthusiasm  for  peace ; the 
second  the  low-water  mark  of  Christendom’s  ancient, 
well-established  love  of  strife.  One  day  Christendom’s 
talk  was  all  of  reason  and  mercy,  the  next  its  act  was 
all  brutality  and  unreason.  Yesterday  it  was  all  for 
education,  health,  the  salvation  of  the  perishing,  the 
general  diffusion  of  comfort,  the  incoming  of  universal 
amity ; to-day  it  is  for  the  destruction  of  lands,  crops, 
homes,  the  making  of  more  widows  and  orphans  than 
its  philanthropies  will  ever  be  able  to  provide  for. 
Having  built,  it  next  proceeds  to  throw  down;  having 


TO  THE  REFORMER 


415 


planted,  to  root  up ; having  saved,  to  destroy  : its  good 
is  turned  to  evil,  and  its  sweet  to  bitter.  The  harvest 
is  past,  the  summer  is  ended ; and  we  are  not  saved. 

; On  the  contrary,  the  last  state  of  that  tragic  year 
* was  worse  than  the  first.  International  armaments 
received,  not  a diminution,  but  an  unprecedented  aug- 
mentation. The  arts  and  sciences  on  which  the  re- 
former had  relied  for  health,  knowledge,  and  virtue 
were  at  once  enlisted  on  the  side  of  rapine  and  impov- 
erishment. Trade  and  industry  lapsed  from  the  ideal 
of  fraternal  service  into  a horrible  pit  of  theft  and 
murder.  Political  organizations  lurched  down  into  a 
perfect  welter  of  cynicism  and  brutality.  Ecclesiasti- 
cism  shot  like  a star  from  the  heaven  of  religion  and 
morals  to  the  hell  of  hypocrisy,  cant,  blood  lust,  hatred, 
blind  passion,  revenge.  The  people  proved  themselves 
yet  unable  to  work  out  their  salvation ; fell  into  the 
snare  set  for  them  by  schemers  in  parliament,  scoun- 
drels on  ’change,  jingoes  in  the  mission  field;  played 
once  again  the  great  game  of  their  masters  ; blasted 
their  own  future  in  trampling  on  the  present  of  another 
democracy.  The  ideal  Christ  who  had  long  hovered 
just  above  men’s  heads  waiting  to  be  seized  and  en- 
shrined in  social  and  political  institution  vanished  into 
the  heavens  ; the  child  Christ  who  had  been  conceived 
in  the  mind  of  that  generation,  and  had  all  but  come 
to  birth,  fell  — a blood-stained  abortion.  Every  moral 
cause  disappeared  in  a wild  welter  of  greed  and  brutal- 
ity. Programmes  were  torn  up,  or  sadly  returned  to 
pigeonholes  to  wait  a more  convenient  season.  The 
cause  of  reform  went  down  in  a sea  of  blood,  to  be 


416 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


recovered  and  revived  after  — who  knows  how  long 
years  ! A guilty  politician  confesses  that  when  a war  is 
being  carried  on  ministries  cannot  burden  themselves 
with  great  measures  of  legislation.2  The  blatant  note 
which  too  often  marred  Tennyson’s  music  was  heard 
again  3 : 

Let  your  reforms  for  a moment  go  ! 

Look  to  your  butts,  and  take  good  aims ! 

Better  a rotten  borough  or  so 

Than  a rotten  fleet  and  a city  in  flames ! 

Great  Britain  resembled  the  householder,  ludicrously 
described  by  Ruskin,  who  was  obliged  to  spend  so 
much  upon  steel  traps  to  checkmate  or  better  the  steel 
traps  of  his  neighbor  that  he  had  nothing  left  where- 
with to  paper  his  drawing-room,  or  fresco  his  ceiling, 
or  curtain  his  windows,  or  even,  we  might  ourselves 
add,  to  feed  his  children.  The  national  debt  bounded 
up  from  ^635,000,000  gross  to  ^800,000,000,  and  the 
patient  savings  of  two  generations  were  dissipated  at 
one  cruel  swoop.4  Consols  fell  from  no  to  91.  Truly, 
in  the  phrase  of  a disciple,  imperialism  cannot  be  “run 
on  the  cheap.”  The  direct  impoverishment  from  war 
— resulting  from  its  enormous  consumption  of  wealth, 
its  total  unproductiveness,  its  interruption  of  the  usual 
course  of  trade  and  capital  — is  outdone  by  that  financial 
demoralization  which,  having  become  accustomed  to 
think  in  millions,  proceeds  to  extraordinary  lengths  of  ex- 
travagance, in  the  sheer  spirit  of  the  spendthrift  and  the 
prodigal.  “ In  one  short  eighteen  months,”  said  a lead- 
ing financial  authority,5  “ the  war  party  now  sitting  on 


TO  THE  REFORMER 


417 


our  necks  has  dissipated  more  money  than  the  working 
classes  managed  to  accumulate  out  of  their  wages  dur- 
ing the  whole  reign  of  the  late  Queen  Victoria,  and  the 
government  which  has  taken  charge  of  and  guaranteed 
these  savings  is  on  its  way  to  a bankruptcy  more  com- 
plete than  that  of  the  unspeakable  Turk  himself.”  It 
was  a true  word  of  Bastiat,  “ The  ogre  war  requires  as 
much  for  his  digestion  as  for  his  meals.” 

Bitter  consequences  were  then  seen  to  be  inevitable. 
The  battered  old  workers  of  the  country  would  have 
to  wait  another  generation  before  the  question  of  keep- 
ing them  out  of  the  workhouse  by  a pitiful  pension  of 
five  shillings  a week  could  even  be  heard  of  again, 
unless  in  a sad  hour  they  bettered  the  instruction  of 
their  rulers  given  through  the  capitalistic  war  which 
opened  the  twentieth  century, — the  lesson,  namely, 
that  it  is  permissible  to  shed  blood  for  the  sake  of 
political  and  economic  reforms. 

Helpless  women,  little  children,  the  virtuous  poor, 
would  have  to  pine  in  fever-stricken  dens  and  garrets 
miscalled  “ houses,”  the  vicious  to  herd  in  foul  tene- 
ments breeding  new  forms  of  incest,  fornication,  dis- 
ease, crime,  misery,  beggary  unspeakable ; waiting  till 
the  war  fever  had  died  out,  till  the  war  debt  had  been 
paid,  till  the  deluded  and  betrayed  democracy  of  the 
country  shook  off  the  nightmare  and  the  sin  that  had 
sold  them  into  the  slums  for  another  generation. 

Brave  sailors  and  hardy  fishermen  would  still  have 
to  perish  all  along  the  ironbound  coasts  of  Britain;  for 
the  revenue  had  gone  in  making  a new  sea  of  blood ; 
there  was  none  left  to  build  harbors  of  refuge. 


418 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


Pitiful  consumptives  would  still  have  to  waste  away 
in  slow  dying ; for  the  wealth  that  might  have  built 
health  palaces,  life  refuges,  to  receive  them  had  been 
poured  out  to  build  tombs,  to  dig  graves,  to  spread  new 
forms  of  ghastly  death. 

Miserable  dipsomaniacs  would  still  have  to  welter 
and  sweat  in  their  disease  and  crime  ; for  a wonderful 
and  horrible  thing  had  happened,  — the  thought,  inter- 
est, money,  that  should  have  been  given  to  the  problem 
of  saving  them  had  been  transferred  to  a scheme  as 
tragic  and  demoralizing  in  its  results  as  the  traffic  that 
had  ruined  them. 

All  this  the  reformer  saw,  and  his  heart  filled  with  a 
curse. 

War  inflicts  mortal  injury  upon  public  sentiment  and 
the  cause  of  public  improvement  by  setting  the  war- 
rior in  offensive  contrast  to  the  reformer, — by  loading 
the  blood-stained  conqueror  with  honors,  while  the  un- 
selfish bearer  of  his  country’s  sufferings  and  redeemer 
of  its  sins  goes  unacknowledged.  Public  distinctions 
and  rewards  are,  in  fact,  held  up  before  the  fighting  man 
throughout  every  stage  in  his  career.  The  Soldier's 
Pocket  Book 6 repeatedly  urges  him  to  “covet  honor 
like  a true  sinner.”  . . . “The  longing  for  distinction 
is  . . . the  mainspring  to  all  military  feeling,”  and  the 
authorities  are  exhorted  to  do  all  they  can  to  “foster” 
it.  . . . Men  are  to  be  “petted  and  rewarded”  for 
special  service,  and  even  the  miserable  semblances  of 
men  called  spies  are  to  be  “ petted  and  made  a great 
deal  of,  being  liberally  paid  and  large  rewards  given 


TO  THE  REFORMER 


419 


them.”  The  governing  authorities,  to  do  them  justice, 
play  well  up  to  the  fighting  baby’s  desire  to  be  petted. 
It  is  thus  that  the  mild  splendors  of  benevolence  are 
eclipsed  by  the  wild  glare  of  the  warrior’s  ferocity ; so 
that  while  every  brazen  throat  blares  out  salutes  to 
the  victorious  manslayer  the  heroic  exploits  of  the 
philanthropist,  the  reformer,  the  savior,  find  few  voices. 
Under  a military  regime  the  fighter  is  the  only  public 
servant  who  is  sure  of  general  applause  and  royal  pat- 
ronage. If  a great  queen  celebrates  her  jubilee,  her 
advisers  will  transform  it  into  a display  of  armed  might, 
a triumph  of  military  officers ; and  the  peaceful  but 
glorious  servants  of  humanity  who  have  ministered  in 
the  spheres  of  science,  art,  industry,  agriculture,  reform, 
philanthrophy,  will  be  thrown  into  the  shade;  the  men 
whose  virtue  and  self-denial  make  the  world  sweet  and 
strong,  the  peacemakers,  the  toilers,  the  cross  bearers, 
will  be  passed  over  or  humbly  bring  up  the  rear.  It 
is  for  the  returning  conqueror  the  garland  is  woven, 
the  triumphal  arch  reared,  the  feast  spread ; while  the 
careworn  philanthropist,  with  anxious  furrows  on  his 
cheeks  and  premature  stoop  in  his  shoulders,  unknown 
and  unacknowledged,  makes  his  way  through  the  crowds 
of  cheering  men  and  excited  women,  to  take  his  place 
at  the  lower  end  of  the  table  at  the  head  of  which, 
raised  on  a dais,  like  a god,  sits  the  taker  of  ten  thou- 
sand lives  and  breaker  of  a million  hearts,  to  be  dined 
and  wined  as  if  he  were  the  greatest  benefactor  and 
hero  in  the  world.7  It  is  in  scenes  like  these  that  the 
craft  of  selfish  rulers  and  scheming  politicians  culmi- 
nates ; they  have  plotted  to  cover  the  soldier  with 


420 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


honors  in  order  to  popularize  his  trade.  Substantial 
gifts  — lands,  titles,  revenues,  pensions  — liberally  re- 
ward his  destructive  successes,  while  the  smaller  honors 
of  badges,  ribbons,  medals,  clasps,  crosses,  fall  around 
in  showers  till  the  glitter  and  the  glory  dazzle  the  pub- 
lic eye  so  that  it  no  longer  sees  the  gory  field,  and  cun- 
ning flatteries  intoxicate  the  public  mind  so  that  it 
forgets  the  sufferings.  These  are  the  deceitful  arts  by 
which  every  national  event  is  made  to  contribute  to 
the  martial  spirit,  and  to  discourage,  in  like  proportion, 
the  glorious  pursuits  of  peace  and  humanitarianism. 
By  these  glaring  object  lessons  men  are  taught  that 
the  way  to  popular  admiration  and  royal  favor  lies  not 
through  social  sacrifice,  agricultural  development,  indus- 
trial improvement,  scientific  invention,  but  through 
fields  of  battle  and  murder.  These  are  the  devices  by 
which  the  army  is  kept  before  the  eye  of  aspiring  youth 
as  the  surest  and  speediest  way  of  coming  to  riches, 
fame,  and  honor.  “As  long,”  wrote  Gibbon,  with  par- 
tial truth,  “as  mankind  shall  continue  to  bestow  more 
liberal  applause  on  their  destroyers  than  on  their 
benefactors,  the  thirst  of  military  glory  will  ever  be 
the  vice  of  the  most  exalted  characters.”  Had  he 
said  “most  malign  characters”  the  saying  would  have 
been  true. 

It  is  thus  that  war  damages  the  reformer.  It  pro- 
claims itself  the  highroad  to  renown,  condemns  the 
humanist  to  the  shady  bypaths  of  life,  roots  in  blood 
the  greenest  laurels  society  has  to  bestow,  turns  all 
but  the  bravest  and  most  resolute  away  from  the  bare 
and  thorny  road  of  public  improvement,  reform,  and 


TO  THE  REFORMER 


421 


philanthropic  endeavor,  and  continually  postpones  the 
prophetic  hope  of  Lowell8 : 

The  sculptured  marble  brags  of  death-strewn  fields, 

And  glory’s  epitaph  is  writ  in. blood  ; 

But  Alexander  now  to  Plato  yields, 

Clarkson  will  stand  where  Wellington  hath  stood. 

War  damages  the  reformer's  position  also  by  mak- 
ing him  an  object  of  repugnance  to  the  militarist,  who 
is  necessarily  landed  in  deep  and  atheistic  disbelief  in 
the  first  principles  of  the  gospel,  — an  unconscious  dis- 
belief perfectly  consistent  with  all  the  creeds,  whether 
the  Calvinistic  of  Cromwell,  the  evangelical  of  Vicars, 
or  the  mystical  of  Gordon.  Through  strength  of  inher- 
ited prejudice  raised  to  its  extreme  height  by  royal 
patronage  and  popular  homage  the  warrior  is  drawn 
away  from  an  ethical  view  of  life,  and  can  hardly  help 
beginning  to  look  with  some  disdain  upon  the  lowly 
servant  of  humanity,  going  on  to  fear  him  as  an  oppo- 
nent of  military  policy,  and  ending  by  denouncing  him 
as  the  enemy  of  all  he  himself  thinks  most  essential  for 
life  and  society.  If  he  is  a commander-in-chief  respon- 
sible for  entire  armies  and  war  policies,  he  does  not  hes- 
itate to  dismiss  the  world’s  hope  and  to  stigmatize  the 
aspirant  after  universal  peace  as  a dangerous  dreamer, — 
especially  dangerous  in  any  public  position, — and  goes 
on  to  express  the  fervent  wish  that  no  man  who  so 
believes  may  ever  come  to  high  position  in  his  country. 
“Gentlemen,”  says  he,  “I  do  not  believe  in  universal 
peace.  There  never  was  a time  when  peace  lasted  for 
long ; and  the  man  who  believes  the  time  will  come 
when  there  will  be  no  more  wars  — I believe  that  man  to 


422 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


be  a dangerous  dreamer  of  dreams,  and  certainly  dan- 
gerous in  any  public  position.  I hope  that  no  man  who 
believes  that  may  ever  be  in  any  high  position  in  Eng- 
land!”9 It  would  be  interesting  to  learn  the  warrior’s 
inner  thought  of  that  Personage  who  gave  his  name  to 
Christendom  ; but  it  is  not  the  warrior’s  way  to  offend 
public  sentiment  as  long  as  it  is  willing  to  indorse  his 
schemes  and  vote  his  supplies,  for  he  knows  that  the 
public  have  a curious  way  of  hanging  on  to  their  ideals, 
as  upon  the  stars  of  heaven,  with  their  hands,  even 
while  trampling  them  in  the  mire,  as  upon  the  stars’ 
reflections  under  their  feet.  One  involuntarily  specu- 
lates whether  our  generalissimo  would  oppose  the  elec- 
tion of  Jesus  to  any  exalted  position  in  the  state — unless 
it  were  that  identical  altitude  voted  him  by  the  milita- 
rists of  the  first  century.  To  this  antichristian  depth 
is  a country  led  by  war.  To  this  height  of  crucifixion 
is  the  reformer  doomed  by  the  soldier. 

Not  only  does  the  cult  of  war  damage  the  reformer 
by  attracting  all  the  honors,  but  even  by  claiming  all  the 
merit,  — by  teaching  that  moral  courage  is  tame  and 
inglorious  beside  military  bravery.  To  set  forth  goodly 
reasons  for  totally  denying  heroism  to  military  opera- 
tions as  such  would  not  be  a formidable  task.  Military 
courage  is  not  of  the  kind  that  can  bear  philosophical 
examination.  Whatever  is  heroic  about  soldiering  is 
not  of  its  essence,  is  accident,  and  can  be  found  in 
equal  perfection  in  a hundred  different  places.  Let  it 
be  cheerfully  granted  that  much  greatness  of  soul, 
unselfishness,  devotion,  chivalrous  sacrifice,  animated 


TO  THE  REFORMER 


423 


countless  numbers  of  the  unnamed  and  unnameable 
hosts  who  have  hideously  died  on  the  world’s  battle 
plains.  Let  it  be  granted  that  freedom,  justice,  home, 
were  not  unseldom  the  shrines  before  which  they  joy- 
fully devoted  themselves  to  death.  These  aspects  of 
war  have  been  so  long  and  so  exclusively  presented 
that  the  other  side  now  demands  to  be  portrayed.  To 
delineate  that  lower,  and  essentially  truer,  side  of  war 
is  the  purpose  of  these  pages.  And  the  time  has  come 
to  say,  in  view  of  the  moral  and  social  evolution  of  the 
modern  man,  that  there  is  as  much  cowardice  as  cour- 
age in  the  feelings  that  make  a hundred  thousand  men 
hang  together  throughout  the  vicissitudes  of  a long 
campaign,  as  much  fear  as  heroism  in  the  motives 
that  produce  their  most  remarkable  achievements.  The 
same  man  who  earns  a Victoria  cross  for  blowing  out 
an  enemy’s  brains,  knowing  that  the  alternative  is  to 
have  his  own  blown  out,  will  with  equal  alacrity  blow 
out  the  brains  of  an  unoffending  comrade  rather  than 
disobey  the  word  of  his  commanding  officer.  Is  this 
courage  ? Is  it  heroic  to  inflict  death  rather  than  bear 
the  penalty  of  righteous  disobedience  ? Is  it  brave  to 
keelhaul  a comrade  for  an  offense  with  which  you  sym- 
pathize rather  than  be  yourself  strung  up  to  the  yard- 
arm?10 Is  it  bravery  to  violate  one’s  inner  sense  of 
justice  at  the  bidding  of  a thing  in  epaulets  ? 

Look  at  another  side  of  the  business.  It  is  a fact 
that  brute  courage  is  frequently  associated  with  the 
worst  qualities  of  human  nature.  Pirates,  highwaymen, 
garroters,  housebreakers,  usually  exhibit  animal  cour- 
age of  a quite  orthodox  kind,  which  is  generally  explained 


424 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


by  their  physical  indifference  to  pain  and  their  insensi- 
bility to  moral  considerations,  — an  explanation  which 
equally  fits  the  exploits  of  the  battlefield.  Savages 
frequently  display  most  unconquerable  fearlessness  of 
death,  and  composure  most  serene  under  frightfulest 
torture.  To  derive  soldierly  indifference  to  wounds  and 
death  solely,  or  even  chiefly,  from  the  nobler  attributes 
of  patriotism  and  justice  is  to  mock  both  sense  and 
fact,  and  is  but  another  proof  of  our  fulsome  flattery  of 
the  military  profession.  A large  proportion  of  the  men 
who  compose  an  army  are  of  brutish  nature  when  they 
enlist,  and  do  not  improve  under  training ; they  are  on 
the  same  moral  plane  as  the  buccaneer  and  the  savage, 
rival  them  in  physical  toughness  and  nervous  insensi- 
bility, like  them  are  hardened  by  vice,  naturally  inca- 
pable of  reflection,  devoid  of  imagination,  spurred  on 
by  personal  danger ; and,  in  addition,  are  stupefied 
by  discipline,  kept  to  their  bloody  work  under  threat 
of  the  drumhead  and  the  scooped-out  grave.  In  truth 
there  is  no  class  of  men  whose  endurance  and  bravery 
call  for  less  admiration.  An  undeveloped  conscience 
and  a brute  physique  go  to  the  making  of  much  military 
heroism,  — a heroism  shared  with  the  most  hardened  of 
mankind,  - — which,  subduing  at  most  the  single  emotion 
of  fear,  permits  the  yet  baser  passions  of  servility, 
revenge,  cruelty,  licentiousness,  to  ravage  the  soul. 

In  contrast  to  mere  brute  indifference  either  to  endur- 
ing or  inflicting  death  moral  heroism,  while  equally 
regardless  of  life,  commands  every  power  and  passion 
of  the  soul  into  subordination  to  some  great  princi- 
ple of  conduct,  suffering  and  enduring  with  sublime 


TO  THE  REFORMER 


42  5 


composure  whatever  deprivations,  censures,  wounds, 
deaths,  may  be  entailed.  The  exciting  episodes  of  war- 
fare do,  unquestionably,  call  forth  incidental  displays 
of  courage,  endurance,  sacrifice  ; but  these  are  mere 
survivals  of  that  brute  nature  and  brute  period  of  devel- 
opment which  are  already  passing  into  a nature  specifi- 
cally human  and  the  period  of  ethical  intelligence.  Man 
is  ceasing  to  be  a fighting  animal,  and  is  evolving  into 
a sensitive,  sympathetic,  judging,  reflective,  altruistic 
being.  Our  bustling  occidental  civilization  is  learning 
from  the  calmer  Orient  that  human  nature  is  capable 
of  higher  qualities  than  those  of  the  rooster  and  the 
rutting  stag.  Modern  arts  of  war  are  themselves  has- 
tening the  change ; for  here  also  the  accent  is  being 
shifted  from  bone  and  brawn  to  brain  and  morale. 
Blood  and  bounce  are  everywhere  receding  before 
thought  and  character.  Fighting  qualities  are  out  of 
date.  The  fighting  man  is  a back  number.  Man  now 
knows  himself  so  brave  that  he  does  not  require  to 
fight  to  prove  it.  No  more  perfect  courage  has  ever 
been  displayed  than  by  tender  women,  girls,  boys,  in 
the  heated  furnace  of  persecution,  unless  it  be  the 
bearing  of  those  same  women  amid  the  environing 
dangers  of  disease  in  its  most  hideous  and  threatening 
forms.  The  moral  reformer  moving  calmly  in  his  sphere 
of  unselfish  labor,  the  pure  philanthropist,  the  saintly 
nurse,  the  consecrated  genius,  the  sanctified  agitator, 
the  divine  revolutionary,  — all  these,  devoting  them- 
selves to  life’s  highest  ends  and  humanity’s  purest 
interests,  fearing  nothing  for  the  body,  fearing  only 
the  moral  cowardice  which  is  able  to  cast  both  soul  and 


426 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


body  into  Gehenna,  are  to  be  numbered  amongst  the 
cross  bearers,  and  therefore  amongst  the  heroes  of  man- 
kind. The  names  of  our  greatest  heroes  are  written  in 
tears,  not  blood.  Or  if  in  blood,  in  their  own,  not  their 
enemies’.  An  open-eyed  survey  of  life  approves  Byron’s 
assertion  that 11 

The  drying  up  a single  tear  has  more 

Of  honest  fame,  than  shedding  seas  of  gore. 

The  peace  heroisms  now  advance  to  claim  that  hom- 
age too  long  usurped  by  the  dizzying  and  meretricious 
charms  of  war.  It  is  no  longer  possible  to  ignore  the 
issue  between  the  military  standard  presented  in  the 
dominant  imperialism  and  the  permanent  moral  ideal 
represented  by  the  reforming  spirit.  We  are  now  com- 
pelled to  choose  between  two  discordant  theories  of 
life,  two  contradictory  types  of  character;  and  the  elect 
will  be  known  by  this,  that,  choose  the  fighting  heroisms 
who  may,  he  will  choose  the  heroisms  of  peace.  If  a 
soldier  who  dies  in  the  trench  be  a hero,  what  name 
is  left  to  describe  that  youthful  doctor  who  voluntarily 
enters  the  plague  house  to  be  shut  up  with  blackening 
sufferers  and  blackened  corpses,  ministering  by  night 
and  day  till  the  hideous  death  claims  him  too,  and  con- 
signs him  to  indiscriminate  burial  in  the  trenches  amid 
a heap  of  human  putrefaction,  without  “ storied  urn  or 
animated  bust  ” to  commemorate  the  martyrdom?  The 
ship  captain  who  shakes  hands  with  his  mate,  saying 
calmly,  “ God  speed  you,  I will  go  down  with  my 
passengers”  ; the  fisherman  who  breasts  the  surf,  chin- 
deep,  life  line  in  hand,  to  rescue  a foreign  cabin  boy  on 


TO  THE  REFORMER 


4.27 

a dismasted  sloop ; the  fireman  who  fights  the  flame 
with  naked  hand  in  passionate  determination  to  save 
that  child  on  the  top  story ; the  negro  who  steps  back 
into  the  steaming  boiler  that  his  married  comrade  may 
reach  the  manhole  and  live  ; the  mechanic  who  drops 
from  the  yielding  telegraph  wire  that  his  married  com- 
rade may  hang  in  safety  till  rescued  ; the  telegraph 
clerk  who,  when  the  fires  rage  round  the  doomed  city, 
dies  at  his  instrument,  caring  only  to  live  long  enough 
to  flash  a message  along  the  wires  that  will  bring 
deliverance  to  the  rest ; the  engine  driver  who  rushes 
his  train  across  the  burning  prairie  till  the  eyes  are 
scorched  in  the  head,  skin  peels,  blackened  tongue 
hangs  out  of  the  mouth  of  him,  ere  he  lands  his  living 
freight  in  a place  of  safety,  — these  authenticated  kings 
of  men  are  but  specimens  of  Whitman’s  “ numberless 
unknown  heroes  equal  to  the  greatest  heroes  known,”12 
whose  reasoned  and  unrewarded  nobility  far  outshines 
the  glaring  and  smoky  exploits  of  the  maddening  and 
unreasoning  battle  ground.  And  what  shall  be  said  of 
the  living  martyrdoms  of  multitudes  of  nurses,  attend- 
ants, slum  workers,  Red-Cross  saviors ; of  the  long 
agonies  of  suffering  women,  silent  endurance  of  linger- 
ing diseases  whose  acuteness  and  extent  beggar  the 
more  dramatic  pains  of  the  battlefield ; or  of  the  dis- 
interested cross  bearers  who  go  about  scattering  every- 
where bread,  comfort,  help,  culture,  virtue,  relieving 
the  immeasurable  want  and  sorrow  and  ignorance  of 
mankind  ; or  of  the  zealous  pioneer  who  shakes  the 
pillars  of  the  world  in  his  determination  to  secure  for 
the  poor  and  downtrodden  better  conditions  of  life, 


428 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


cheaper  and  abundant  bread,  light  and  air  to  breathe, 
leisure  and  opportunity  to  think,  — sacrificing  his  own 
career  of  ambition,  opportunities  of  fortune,  possibilities 
of  fame,  and  accepting  instead  the  sneers  of  the  super- 
ficial and  the  curses  of  the  selfish?  No  ! let  us  not  be 
blind  to  the  true  nature  of  things  ; men  do  not  need  a 
spark  from  hell  to  kindle  their  heroisms  ; the  spark  of 
div.inity  quickens  them  to  all  high  sacrifice,  to  the  task 
of  saving  instead  of  destroying  mankind.  Why  judge 
we  so  foolishly  of  things?  Why  should  it  be  esteemed 
less  noble  to  clothe  the  naked  than  to  strip  a foe  of  his 
armor  ? to  feed  the  hungry  than  to  starve  out  a garrison  ? 
to  grow  rather  than  burn  a field  of  wheat?  to  build 
rather  than  shell  a house?  “Are  not,”  asks  Ruskin,13 
“ all  forms  of  heroism  conceivable  in  doing  these  serv- 
iceable deeds?  You  doubt  who  is  strongest  ? It  might 
be  ascertained  by  push  of  spade,  as  well  as  push  of 
sword.  Who  is  wisest?  There  are  witty  things  to  be 
thought  of  in  planning  other  business  than  campaigns. 
Who  is  bravest?  There  are  always  the  elements  to 
fight  with,  stronger  than  men  ; and  nearly  as  merci- 
less.” The  strong  men  of  history  — was  it  by  fighting 
the  elements  or  by  slaughter  that  they  were  trained  for 
duty?  Moses,  David,  Maccabeus,  Cincinnatus,  Grac- 
chus, Cromwell,  Washington,  Lincoln,  — was  it  war 
that  made  these  great?  Was  it  not  rather  in  the 
heroisms  of  peace  they  strengthened  themselves,  first 
measuring  their  manhood  against  the  elemental  powers, 
and  only  afterwards  carrying  their  developed  natures 
into  battle  as  mournful  lapses  (judged  necessary  by  the 
standards  of  their  times)  from  the  prosecution  of  far 


TO  THE  REFORMER 


429 


grander  and  wider  aims?  It  is  by  turning  man’s  atten- 
tion away  from  these  far-sweeping  moral  ambitions  to 
the  trivial  issues  involved  in  all  wars  that  the  reformer 
is  most  deeply  injured  and  the  causes  he  represents 
thwarted  and  obscured. 

The  reformer,  at  this  point,  runs  up  against  an  argu- 
ment for  militarism  as  curious  as  it  is  common  : war, 
it  is  alleged,  tends  to  destroy  itself  by  its  accumulated 
dangers,  so  that  he  is  the  best  peacemaker  who  can 
produce  the  most  destructive  engine,  and  that  the  most 
peaceful  nation  which  can  procure  for  its  use  the 
largest  number  of  powerful  and  efficient  instruments  of 
slaughter  ; so  that  we  should  encourage  to  the  uttermost 
the  invention  of  more  awful  forms  of  destruction,  until 
we  climax  in  some  chemical  powder  which  is  able  to 
blow  every  army  off  the  face  of  the  earth.14  “ The  only 
chance  for  the  abolition  of  war  lies  in  the  probability 
that  the  invention  of  universally  slaughtering  machines 
will  become  such  that  war  will  be  impossible  except  at 
the  cost  of  annihilation.” 15  To  discuss  theories  like  these 
is  impossible.  They  are  the  outcome  of  cynicism,  skepti- 
cism, or  a bottomless  pessimism  which  has  lost  all  faith 
in  human  nature  or  the  possibilities  of  human  progress  in 
any  other  direction  than  backwards.  When  war  is  abol- 
ished— as  it  will  be  — the  credit  of  the  achievement 
will  not  be  due  to  chemical  discovery  but  to  the  moral 
evolution  of  the  nature  of  man,  organizing  itself  as  it 
goes  into  expanding  habits  of  justice,  reason,  and  love. 

Like  every  other  iniquity,  war  puts  a variety  of 
specious  fallacies  into  the  mouths  of  its  adherents, 


43° 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


by  which  it  seems  to  speak  the  language  of  peace. 
It  resembles  that  treacherous  Jew16  “the  words  of 
whose  mouth  were  smoother  than  butter,  but  war  was 
in  his  heart : whose  words  were  softer  than  oil,  yet 
were  they  drawn  swords.”  It  teaches  its  disciples  to 
“ seek  peace  and  ensue  it  ” by  diligently  cultivating  the 
arts  of  war  and  mountainously  piling  up  preparations 
for  it  like  Pelion  upon  Ossa.  It  takes  the  doctrine 
formulated  by  Vegetius,  a military  writer  of  the  fourth 
century  (the  worst  period  of  Roman  decadence),  endows 
it  with  such  appalling  vogue  and  prestige  that  it  has 
ever  since  been  the  favorite  shibboleth  of  the  war- 
mongers, and  even  emerges  from  the  ink  bottles  of 
writers  in  peace  papers  17  as  “ the  glorious  maxim,  In 
time  of  peace  prepare  for  war,"  or  its  variant,  Who 
would  desire  peace  should  be  prepared  for  war.  It  is 
impossible  to  believe  that  the  class  of  men  who  coin 
this  frightful  imposture  can  really  believe  that  they  are 
the  saviors  and  makers  of  their  countries,  or  be  blind 
to  the  knowledge  that  they  are  the  authors  of  half  their 
countries’  miseries  and  of  their  final  ruin ; but  such  is 
the  willful  hypocrisy  of  Christian  nations  that  they 
readily  pretend  to  accept  every  increase  of  armament 
as  a means  of  preserving  peace,  thankful  for  the  well- 
sounding formula  that  saves  appearances.  Hence 
armies  grow  bigger  and  navies  more  numerous  — 
provocative,  in  turn,  of  fresh  jealousies  and  interna- 
tional suspicions — till  the  burden  becomes  heavier  than 
can  be  carried,  the  tired  nations  break  down  in  morals 
as  an  alternative  to  becoming  bankrupt  in  materials, 
discontent  at  home  rises  to  meet  unrest  abroad,  and 


TO  THE  REFORMER 


431 


the  desire  to  have  it  out  and  be  at  rest  can  no  longer 
be  restrained.  The  dangers  ordinarily  arising  from 
national  jealousies,  ambitions,  passions,  cannot  but  be 
increased  enormously  by  the  presence  of  armies  and 
navies  deemed  by  national  vanity  irresistible,  composed 
of  soldiers  and  led  by  officers  eager  to  demonstrate 
their  valor  and  their  skill ; and  it  is  precisely  the  prime 
object  of  modern  civilization  to  annihilate  these  causes 
of  strife.  There  can  be  no  army  without  war ; the 
mere  possession  of  an  army  necessitates  its  occasional 
use ; to  possess  arms  is  to  itch  to  use  them.18  Suppos- 
ing it  were  true  that  huge  armies,  invincible  navies, 
exhaustless  recruiting  grounds,  were  to  secure  a people 
against  outside  attack,  would  it  secure  the  outside 
nations  from  being  attacked  ? The  strength  which 
makes  a good  man  a savior  makes  a bad  one  a bully. 
Does  a consciousness  of  great  ^strength  never  give  occa- 
sion to  unjust  claims  ? “ It  is  excellent  to  have  a giant’s 
strength  ; but  it  is  tyrannous  to  use  it  like  a giant.”  Is 
the  nation  yet  born  that  can  be  trusted  with  omnipo- 
tence ? No  ! this  is  a subterfuge,  not  an  argument ; 
and  is  best  answered  by  a single  word  of  the  great  hater 
of  sham:  “Satan  cannot  cast  out  Satan”  — the  devil 
will  not  destroy  sin  — war  will  not  put  an  end  to  fight- 
ing. The  war  system  steadily  enlarges,  giving  new 
causes  and  opportunities  of  strife.  Those  powers  which 
have  armed  in  the  name  of  peace  have  no  peace ; for 
there  can  be  no  peace  to  the  wicked.  A state  of  armed 
truce  tends  inevitably  to  the  very  cataclysm  it  profess- 
edly aims  at  averting.  The  peoples  who  will  not  disarm 
must  fight ; and  they  do.  Every  principle  of  reason  and 


432 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


common  sense  and  multitudes  of  competent  wits  pro- 
test against  a hollow  pretense  which  owes  its  continued 
existence  not  to  any  truthfulness  inherent  in  it  but 
solely  to  the  willful  prejudice  of  the  warmonger  who  is 
determined  to  have  a justifying  argument  by  hook  or 
crook.  If  further  testimony  is  required  let  it  be  given 
in  the  crushing  deliverances  of  two  sovereigns  reigning 
over  two  of  the  most  powerful  and  warlike  peoples  of 
the  earth.  In  the  summer  of  1898  Nicholas  the  Second 
of  Russia  issued  his  immortal  Rescript, 19  or  Appeal  to 
the  Nations,  out  of  which  came  The  Hague  Confer- 
ence, and  in  the  course  of  which  he  gave  this  pregnant 
judgment:  “The  economic  crisis,  due  in  great  part  to 
the  system  of  armaments  a outrance , and  the  continual 
danger  which  lies  in  this  massing  of  war  material,  are 
transforming  the  armed  peace  of  our  days  into  a crush- 
ing burden,  which  the  peoples  have  more  and  more  dif- 
ficulty in  bearing.  It  appears  evident,  then,  that  if  this 
state  of  things  were  prolonged,  it  would  inevitably  lead 
to  the  very  cataclysm  which  it  is  desired  to  avert,  and 
the  horrors  of  which  make  every  thinking  man  shudder 
in  advance.”  In  the  spring  of  1905  Queen  Alexandra 
of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland  was  reported 20  to  have 
uttered  this  piece  of  queenly  womanliness  : “ I have 
always  mistrusted  warlike  preparations,  of  which  the 
nations  never  seem  to  tire.  Some  day  this  accumulated 
material  of  soldiers  and  guns  will  burst  into  flames  in  a 
frightful  war  that  will  throw  humanity  into  mourning 
on  earth  and  grieve  our  universal  Father  in  heaven.” 
Hearken  to  that,  ye  Kaisers,  Czars,  Emperors,  Presi- 
dents, and  Excellencies  all,  who  fill  the  world  with  your 


TO  THE  REFORMER 


433 


mendacities  of  “self-defense,”  “honor,”  “inevitable 
destiny,”  “ patriotism,”  “ expansion,”  “empire”  — and 
one  of  you  announces  a policy  of  “ soft  words  and  a big 
stick,”  another  declares  for  a “big  revolver,”  a third 
desiderates  “ an  invincible  navy,”  and  all  of  you  indulge 
such  fallacies  as  that  “the  surest  guarantee  of  peace” 
is  a vast  army  and  navy  — hearken  to  that  word  of  the 
Lord  by  the  mouth  of  his  servant  Alexandra  ! Here  is 
a woman  who  to  all  these  pretenses  steadily  opposes 
her  woman’s  instinct  and  “ mistrusts  ” those  warlike 
preparations.  The  woman’s  instinct  is  to  be  backed 
against  the  world.  It  is  the  unique  moral  heroism  of 
her  sex  to  be  able  to  look  the  blatant  world  in  the  face 
and  say,  “Just  because!”  “Like  a man  in  wrath,” 
her  heart  rises  up  and  answers,  “I  have  felt!”  Woman 
is  preeminently  the  judge  of  this  question  of  peace  and 
war.  To  men  have  belonged  those  activities  which  pre- 
vent thought ; it  has  been  hers  to  sit  at  home  and  think 
and  brood  and  grieve.  While  men  have  been  abroad 
breaking  heads,  woman  has  kept  at  home  and  broken 
her  heart.  Man  has  been  shedding  blood,  woman  tears. 
To  man  has  belonged  the  mangled  body,  to  woman  the 
lacerated  soul.  While  Cain  has  been  killing  Abel  on 
the  field,  Eve  has  been  mourning  in  the  dust  of  a des- 
olated domestic  Eden.  To  him  throughout  all  these 
warring  ages  have  been  many  types  and  characters, — 
horse  and  foot,  slinger  and  archer,  gunner  and  marine, 
knight  and  squire  and  page,  advance  guard,  rear  guard, 
and  reserve,  — but  hers  has  been  one  long  steady  and 
consistent  agony,  one  type  persistent  from  the  first 
age  to  the  latest,  “ Mater  Lachrymarum,  Our  Lady  of 


434 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


Tears”  ! 21  Speak  it  again,  woman  and  queen  ! Stretched 
on  war’s  cross  through  the  slow  ages  in  which  at  thy 
bleeding  feet  heedless  man  has  cast  dice  for  lordship 
and  empire,  thou  hast  earned  authority  to  set  thy  sub- 
lime intuition  against  his  conscious  falsehoods  and 
say,  “ I have  always  mistrusted — always  mistrusted — 
mistrusted ! ” 

Verily.  It  is  sure  as  death.  This  accumulating  mass 
of  explosives — lyddite,  dynamite,  cordite,  and  that  dead- 
lier not  yet  invented  — must  one  day  go  off  with  a roar 
that  shall  shake  the  planet,  reduce  every  cabinet  in  Eu- 
rope and  America  to  ashes,  and  destroy  the  resources 
of  democracy  for  generations.  Prate  as  you  please 
about  wishing  for  peace  but  preparing  for  war  — it  is 
the  preparing,  not  the  wishing,  that  counts.  Your 
wishing  is  so  much  idle  fancy ; your  purposeful  prepa- 
ration is  the  moving  thing.  Great  armies  and  navies 
are  meant  to  be  used  ; it  is  the  desire  and  aim  of  large 
multitudes  of  soldiers,  politicians,  financiers,  traders, 
to  get  them  used  ; by  their  own  tremendous  momen- 
tum they  tend  to  get  themselves  into  use  : and  the 
issue  cannot  be  other  than  a conflagration  compared  to 
which  the  greatest  battle  from  Marathon  to  Mukden  is 
but  the  strike  of  a match.  Then  will  the  earth  be 
wrapped  in  fire,  its  thrones  will  sink  in  flaring  anarchy, 
its  peoples  will  perish  like  insects,  because  the  Eternal 
has  come  to  judge  the  nations  for  their  guilt,  their 
folly,  and  their  unbelief.  Can  these  world-shaking  dis- 
asters be  averted  ? Probably  the  weight  and  momen- 
tum of  military  systems  is  already  greater  than  can 
be  arrested  even  by  the  word  of  queens.  Probably  the 


TO  THE  REFORMER 


435 


infatuated  governments  will  continue  to  pile  provoca- 
tion upon  provocation,  threat  on  threat,  sin  on  sin,  till 
the  climax  of  doom  is  reached,  and  those  death  throes 
merge  into  birth  throes  of  the  new  and  better  age. 
But  if  there  be  anywhere  now  a door  of  escape,  it  is 
pointed  to  in  the  words  of  Queen  Alexandra  : “ It  will 
be  by  mutual  love,  and  a common  reverence  for  the 
rights  of  justice  and  charity.”  That  word  is  more  than 
queenly  : it  is  divine. 

That  arms  can  produce  peace  is  a sophism  and  an 
hypocrisy  worthy  of  universal  shame;  but  nations  do 
not  blush.  A single  line  of  Milton  22  shall  sum  the 
whole  truth  : 

For  what  can  war  but  endless  war  still  breed? 

The  burden  wears  to  a close.  It  is  possible  that 
some  readers  may  have  followed  through  all  its  counts 
the  writer’s  unpitying  indictment  of  the  war  spirit,  yet 
sorrowfully  breathe  forth  the  accents  of  fatalism,  fear- 
ing that  war,  with  all  it  implies  of  crime  and  degrada- 
tion, is  “inevitable.”  “There  must  always  be  war,” 
they  say ; which,  were  it  even  correct  as  prophecy, 
should  not  prevent  their  opposing  it  with  every  weapon 
in  the  armory  of  faith.  Are  not  disease  and  death 
“inevitable”?  yet  do  not  men  continue  to  combat 
them,  holding  it  their  duty  to  take  every  means  to  live  ? 
In  the  present  low  state  of  human  development  are 
not  “offenses”  “inevitable”?  yet  was  not  a “woe” 
pronounced  upon  the  man  by  whom  they  come  — and 
does  not  this  include  the  man  who  tamely  consents 
to  their  coming?  Was  not  the  crucifixion  of  Jesus 


436 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


“inevitable”  in  a similar  sense?  but  do  Caiaphas  and 
Pilate  thereby  stand  exonerated  ? Many  things  appear 
to  be  inevitable  which  yet  are  preventable.  If  a mad- 
man applies  a torch  to  a keg  of  powder,  an  explosion 
is  inevitable ; but  it  is  surely  possible  to  prevent  the 
application  of  the  fire!  Never  war  was  waged  in  the 
history  of  man  but  was  pronounced  inevitable  by  its 
makers  ; but  cannot  posterity  look  back  and  see  that 
every  one  of  them  could  have  been  avoided  if  the  flames 
of  selfishness  and  ambition  had  been  quenched  by  the 
saving  waters  of  reason,  neighborliness,  equity  ? Time 
after  time  wars  have  been  foretold  as  “ inevitable,”  yet 
intelligence  and  moral  sense  have  successfully  post- 
poned them  to  this  very  hour,  perchance  forever.  No ! 
the  plea  “ inevitable  ” is  the  plea  of  the  timid  and 
faithless.  It  is  the  note  of  unbelief.  It  is  faith’s  paral- 
ysis. It  is  Hope  dungeoned  by  Giant  Despair.  It  is 
pessimism’s  last  will  and  testament.  Found  in  what- 
ever mouth,  it  is  a confession  of  unfaith  in  moral 
progress,  the  evolution  of  society,  and  the  perfection 
of  human  character.  All  things  are  possible  to  him 
that  believes.  War  is  preventable.  By  resolutely  op- 
posing every  outburst  of  military  temper  as  it  occurs 
military  operations  are  rendered  increasingly  difficult 
and  finally  impossible.  “Able  agents,”  suggests  a dis- 
tinguished literary  woman,23  “ should  be  set  beneath 
the  surface  to  spread  friendly  feeling ; to  encourage 
commerce,  which  is  the  best  bond  of  union  between 
nations  ; to  promote  intermarriage,  which  is  the  nat- 
ural means  of  amalgamation  ; and  to  do  all  else  that 
makes  for  peace  and  good  will.”  Whenever  a war  looms 


TO  THE  REFORMER 


437 


in  the  distance  it  is  the  business  of  the  peace  man  to 
demonstrate  how  clumsy  a way  of  escape  it  presents ; 
how  serious  are  the  fresh  difficulties  it  is  certain  to  open 
up ; how  much  happier  and  lasting  are  the  settlements 
that  can  be  effected  by  arbitration  ; how  brainless  and 
heartless  it  is  to  forestall  the  solutions  through  reason 
and  good  feeling  by  the  clumsy  arbitrament  of  the  sword. 
The  reformer  has  to  place  every  obstacle  in  the  way  of 
war,  and  take  every  stumbling-block  up  out  of  the  way 
of  peace,  substituting  peace  principles  for  physical- 
force  prejudices,  creating  a pacific  habit  in  place  of  the 
inherited  bias  towards  belligerency.  His  word  is  always 
the  Pauline  “ I show  unto  you  a more  excellent  way.” 

Evolution  has  surely  brought  the  nations  so  far  up 
from  the  beast  to  the  angel  as  to  permit  them  to  rele- 
gate armed  conflict  to  the  same  limbo  as  the  vendetta, 
blood  feud,  duel,  street  fight,  and  every  form  of  private 
war.  The  philosophy  of  history  is  now  able  to  charac- 
terize it  as  an  anachronism,  politics  to  characterize  it 
as  a blunder,  ethics  as  barbarism,  law  as  a crime,  and 
religion  as  sin.  Civilized  man  can  now  pierce  through 
the  glamour  of  the  battlefield  to  its  essential  savagery, 
and  turn  from  it  with  as  much  disgust  as  an  epicure 
from  a cannibal  carnival.  And  as  cannibalism  and 
human  sacrifice  were  at  first  associated  with  the  sacred 
rites  of  religion,  but  have  gradually  been  discarded 
until  they  have  become  symbols  of  the  most  repulsive 
forms  of  murder  and  blasphemy,  so  those  very  wars 
which  custom  and  tribal  egoism  have  sanctified  as  the 
birth  throes  of  freedom  and  religion  are  surely  coming 
to  be  classed  among  the  mistakes  and  failures  proper 


438 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


only  to  a lower  age.  It  is  certain  that  freedom  would 
have  been  ampler,  religion  purer,  without  the  bloody 
orgies  which  were  wont  to  be  lauded  as  necessary  to 
their  birth  or  to  defend  their  helpless  infancy.  Mars 
has  proved  but  a clumsy  midwife  to  the  child  Freedom 
and  the  child  Religion,  maiming  his  offspring  at  the 
birth  even  where  he  did  not  kill  them  outright.  Devel- 
oped man  is  more  and  more  offended  by  a coarse  bru- 
tality which  sets  the  bloody  hand  of  the  soldier  to  cut 
that  knot  the  statesman’s  bungling  fingers  were  too 
thick  to  untie,  or  (absurdest  anticlimax  of  all)  to  carve 
out  that  dogma  the  theologian’s  blundering  brain  was 
too  dull  to  prove.  Except  in  Bunyan’s  sense,  the  talk 
of  “holy  war”  palsies  the  lip  of  the  modern  man,  who 
is  coming  to  ask  himself  what  “holiness  ” has  to  do  in 
any  case  with  that  which  has  been  described  as  “hell” 
and  “ the  sum  of  all  villainies.” 

The  fullness  of  the  age  has  come.  “ The  time  is  ripe, 
and  rotten-ripe,  for  change.”24  Christendom  has  now 
to  be  persuaded  to  accept  a Christian  basis  to  its  soci- 
ety,— that  basis  on  which  the  first  Christian  communi- 
ties built  themselves  up  to  a height  of  moral  splendor 
and  influence,  presenting  a most  illustrious  contrast  to 
those  weltering  gulfs  which  divide  their  time  from 
ours ; that  basis  on  which  the  teacher  of  Christendom 
staked  his  all,  — Love.  In  accepting  such  a basis  Chris- 
tendom must  necessarily  reject  that  on  which  it  is  at 
present  founded,  that  which  it  adopted  from  the  Roman 
empire,  — Force.  Brotherhood  based  on  love,  in  place 
of  selfishness  based  on  force,  is  the  goal  towards  which 
the  modern  world  must  be  steadily  pushed.  One  of  the 


TO  THE  REFORMER 


439 


earliest  words  of  Jewish  liberalism  gives  the  keynote 
to  our  latest  civilization  : “Come  now,  and  let  us  reason 
together.”25  Friendly  settlement  of  disputes  seems  to 
be  the  next  link  in  the  chain  of  social  evolution. 
Paine’s  “ Age  of  Reason  ” is  a century  nearer  than 
at  his  time,  and  more  than  a century  nearer  in  the 
widening  of  man’s  intellectual  outlook  and  the  deepen- 
ing of  his  humanist  convictions.  Nationalism  is  being 
keyed  to  brotherhood  ; the  national  is  finding  the  inter- 
national not  inconsistent  with  itself.  The  principle  of 
federalism  is  more  and  more  emerging  into  view  as 
steam  and  electricity  bring  the  ends  of  the  earth  to- 
gether. The  conception  of  human  solidarity  is  passing 
over  from  the  poet  to  the  politician.  Those  occasions 
on  which  peoples  fly  to  arms  are  notably  becoming 
fewer,  while  those  on  which  they  proceed  to  arbitrate 
as  visibly  multiply. 

Speculation  as  to  the  political  form  likely  to  be  taken 
by  the  internationalism  of  the  future  does  not  enter  into 
the  scope  of  this  treatise.  It  may  be  that  an  interna- 
tional congress  will  be  constituted  to  settle  lines  of 
common  and  united  action  in  a spirit  of  brotherhood 
and  rationality.  It  may  be  that  The  Hague  Confer- 
ence and  Convention  are  the  actual  seed  germ  of  “ the 
Parliament  of  man,  the  Federation  of  the  world,” 26 
translated  at  last  from  poetry  to  politics.  It  may  be 
that  the  United  States  of  America  will  be  followed 
by  a United  States  of  Europe,  of  Asia,  of  Africa,  all 
finally  merging  into  the  United  States  of  the  World. 
The  method  will  be  slowly  shaped  out  of  existing  polit- 
ical conditions.  It  is  enough  for  the  peace  advocate  to 


440 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


create  the  spirit.  His  present  duty  is  to  substitute 
neighborliness  for  jealousy,  duties  for  rights,  reverence 
for  contempt,  sympathy  for  suspicion,  helpfulness  for 
hostility,  sacrifice  for  slaughter,  martyrdom  for  murder. 
The  great  and  gracious  words  with  which  Emerson 
concludes  his  essay  on  “ Politics  ” must  be  shown  to 
be  as  practicable  as  they  are  lofty  : “ The  power  of 
love,  as  the  basis  of  a state,  has  never  been  tried.  . . . 
Are  our  methods  now  so  excellent  that  all  competition 
is  hopeless  ? Could  not  a nation  of  friends  even  devise 
better  ways  ? . . . We  live  in  a very  low  state  of  the 
world,  and  pay  unwilling  tribute  to  governments  founded 
on  force.  There  is  not,  among  the  most  religious  and 
instructed  men  of  the  most  religious  and  civil  nations, 
a reliance  on  the  moral  sentiment,  and  a sufficient 
belief  in  the  unity  of  things,  to  persuade  them  that 
society  can  be  maintained  without  artificial  restraints, 
as  well  as  the  solar  system  ; or  that  the  private  citizen 
might  be  reasonable,  and  a good  neighbor,  without  the 
hint  of  a jail  or  a confiscation.  What  is  strange,  too, 
there  never  was  in  any  man  sufficient  faith  in  the  power 
of  rectitude,  to  inspire  him  with  the  broad  design  of 
renovating  the  state  on  the  principle  of  right  and  love. 

. . . I have  just  been  conversing  with  one  man,  to 
whom  no  weight  of  adverse  experience  will  make  it  for 
a moment  appear  impossible,  that  thousands  of  human 
beings  might  exercise  towards  each  other  the  grandest 
and  simplest  sentiments,  as  well  as  a knot  of  friends, 
or  a pair  of  lovers.” 

The  reformer  who  proposes  to  disarm  his  country 
does  not  scheme  to  betray  it.  He  sets  before  it  an 


TO  THE  REFORMER 


441 


increase  of  strength,  a conversion  from  waste  to  thrift, 
from  unrest  to  calmness,  from  unreason  to  rationality  ; 
disperses  some  bands  of  soldiers  prepared  to  kill  for 
their  country’s  good,  and  substitutes  a nation  of  workers 
prepared  for  their  country’s  good  to  live,  or,  in  the  last 
resort,  of  martyrs  prepared  for  their  country’s  good  to 
die.  The  risks  are  less  and  of  nobler  kind  than  those 
involved  in  existing  military  systems.  It  is  far  from 
certain  that  martyrdom  would  be  the  fate  of  a people 
that  refused  to  save  itself  by  murder, — that  annihilation 
would  be  the  doom  of  an  unarmed  community.  Faith, 
trust,  magnanimity,  do  win  reverence  — let  the  cynic 
mouth  as  he  will.  The  child,  the  woman,  the  defense- 
less man,  do  compel  respect  and  win  life  by  their  very 
helplessness;  and  why  not  the  unarmed  nation  ? Moral 
power  is  not  exhausted,  though  the  unbelieving  ortho- 
doxy of  the  day  would  persuade  us  that  it  is. 

Yet  were  it  even  so, — were  a martyred  people  re- 
quired by  the  Eternal  Powers  as  a last  great  warning 
against  the  shedding  of  blood,  — to  be  that  signal 
people  might  well  excite  emulations  such  as  struggle 
for  territory  and  dominion  never  stirred.  As  with  the 
individual  so  with  the  tribe  — it  is  better  to  perish  than 
to  sin.  And  this  is  our  answer  to  those  who  tell  us  the 
nation  must  fight  or  die.  It  is  better  to  die  than  fight. 
No  doom  can  be  so  terrible  as  the  doom  of  successful 
wrong,  no  destiny  so  divine  as  crucifixion  for  the  right  : 
“ The  blood  of  the  martyrs  is  the  seed  of  the  church.” 
Martyred  men  may  point  the  road  to  a martyr  nation. 
If  the  future  should  demand  a sacrifice,  if  a crucified 
people  should  be  necessary  to  the  development  of  the 


442 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


race,  why  should  a race  that  worships  a crucified  man 
shrink  from  the  offering?  The  vision  may  tarry,  but 
the  victim  is  ready.  The  unconquerable  believer  in 
moral  forces,  from  crown-wearing  Czar  to  cross-bearing 
serf,  will  continue  to  possess  his  soul  in  patience, 
and  stay  himself  with  the  thought  of  the  one  strong 
poetess  of  modern  times27 : 

The  world  is  many,  — I am  one  ; 

My  great  Deed  was  too  great. 

God’s  fruit  of  justice  ripens  slow : 

Men’s  souls  are  narrow  ; let  them  grow. 

My  brothers,  we  must  wait. 

The  reformer  dare  not  invite  discouragement  by 
anticipating  a too  easy  victory  for  his  cause.  He  does 
not  hug  the  delusion  that  the  “far-off  interest”  of  his 
present  crusade  can  be  gathered  in  a day.  He  knows 
that  the  idols  of  the  tribe  will  prevail  for  a time  against 
the  ideals  of  humanity.  It  seems  to  be  man’s  way 
to  exhaust  the  possibilities  of  every  folly  and  every 
iniquity  before  he  will  fall  back  upon  the  methods  of 
wisdom  and  goodness.  He  must  drink  the  cup  to  the 
dregs.  And  in  his  infatuation  he  may  resolve  to  make 
final  trial  of  these  fearful  and  wonderful  weapons  he  is 
inventing  for  the  slaughter  of  his  kind.  The  terrific 
fascinations  of  the  game  may  draw  him  on  until  it  is 
played  out.  He  may  determine  on  one  last  awful  ex- 
periment in  the  application  of  the  mechanical  arts  and 
chemical  sciences  to  the  work  of  human  destruction, 
summoning  his  ultimate  reserves  of  strength  and  skill, 
like  Milton’s  Satan,28 

With  rallied  arms  to  try  what  may  be  yet 
Regain’d  in  heaven,  or  what  more  lost  in  hell. 


TO  THE  REFORMER 


443 


As  if  each  were  striving  to  emulate  the  meteoric 
course  of  “ Lucifer,  son  of  the  morning”  (to  quote  from 
the  sublime  epic  of  a Jewish  tragic  poet),29  the  imperial 
overlords  of  the  human  race  may  yet  stand  face  to  face, 
rapt  in  a very  ecstasy  of  egoism  : “I  will  ascend  into 
heaven,  I will  exalt  my  throne  above  the  stars  of  God, 
...  I will  ascend  above  the  heights  of  the  clouds  ; I will 
be  like  the  Most  High.”  Having  first  organized  the  black 
and  yellow  races  to  do  his  working,  and  then  the  white 
races  to  .do  his  fighting,  the  modern  Lucifer  may,  after 
the  fashion  of  the  ancient  empires,  leave  masses  of  black 
and  yellow  slaves  behind  him,  may  successively  call  up 
every  tenth,  fifth,  second  man  of  his  conscript  soldiers, 
until  all  the  able-bodied  men  of  the  white-skinned  races 
stand  facing  each  other  on  the  plains  of  Armageddon 
and  are  swept  away  in  hurricanes  of  blood,  leaving  the 
womanhood  and  childhood  of  the  world  to  mourn  that 
“the  flowers  of  the  forest  are  withered  away,”30  leaving 
the  future  of  the  world  to  those  same  black  and  yellow 
races  he  impiously  stigmatized  as  “ inferior.”  The 
reformer  may  live  to  see  realized  the  terrific  vision  of  a 
Jewish  poet31  in  which  the  frenzied  races  “beat  their 
plowshares  into  swords,  and  their  pruning  hooks  into 
spears.  . . . Multitudes,  multitudes  in  the  valley  of 
decision.  . . . The  sun  and  the  moon  shall  be  darkened, 
and  the  stars  shall  withdraw  their  shining.  . . . The 
heavens  and  the  earth  shall  shake.”  Armed  with  such 
weapons  as  the  revolting  angels  might  have  coveted, 
they  may  come  from  the  four  continents  to  “glut  their 
ire  ” at  an  Aceldama  compared  to  which  the  fall  of  the 
Roman  Babylon  before  the  avenging  Goths  was  but  a 


444 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


nursery  tiff.  Warned  by  the  irony  of  the  Job  poem,32 
“ Canst  thou  draw  out  leviathan  with  an  hook  ? ” and 
reflecting  that  the  brute  of  human  nature  is  yet  mighty 
in  his  pride,  the  idealist  practically  knows  the  monster 
will  die  hard,  not  without  convulsions  that,  in  a larger 
way  than  Paul  Kruger  designed  by  his  historic  phrase, 
“ will  stagger  humanity.”  Like  the  “ great  red  dragon  ” 
of  apocalyptic  vision,83  that  with  his  tail  “ drew  the 
third  part  of  the  stars  of  heaven,  and  did  cast  them 
to  the  earth,”  War,  the  great  red  dragon  of  man’s 
bloody  past,  the  “ape  and  tiger”  of  his  vanishing 
brutality,  may  make  a last,  vain  bid  for  empire.  But 
the  Destinies  will  respond  (to  return  to  the  Jewish  epic) : 
“ Thou  shalt  be  brought  down  to  Sheol,  to  the  sides  of 
the  pit.  . . . Sheol  from  beneath  is  moved  for  thee  to 
meet  thee  at  thy  coming  : it  stirreth  up  the  dead  for 
thee,  even  all  the  chief  ones  of  the  earth  ; it  hath 
raised  up  from  their  [Hadean]  thrones  all  the  [long  dead] 
kings  of  the  nations.”  . . . And  all  these  dead  over- 
lords  of  the  long  vanished  empires  “ shall  narrowly  look 
upon  thee,  and  consider  thee,  saying,  Is  this  the  man 
that  made  the  earth  to  tremble,  that  did  shake  king- 
doms ; that  made  the  world  as  a wilderness,  and  over- 
threw the  cities  thereof  ? . . . All  they  shall  speak  and 
say  unto  thee,  Art  thou  also  become  weak  as  we  ? art 
thou  become  like  unto  us  ? Thy  pomp  is  brought  down 
to  Sheol,  and  the  noise  of  thy  viols  : the  worm  is  spread 
under  thee,  and  worms  cover  thee.”  Then,  at  last, 
relieved  of  its  intolerable  burden  and  torment,  “The 
whole  earth  is  at  rest,  and  is  quiet : they  break  forth 
into  singing.  Yea,  the  fir  trees  rejoice  at  thee,  and  the 


TO  THE  REFORMER 


445 


cedars  of  Lebanon,  saying,  Since  thou  art  laid  down, 
no  feller  is  come  up  against  us  ! ” 

For  the  world’s  hope  is  not  a lie.  The  fighter,34 
obeying  every  instinct  of  his  nature  and  every  rule  of 
his  training,  may  declare  that  “ eternal  peace  is  only  a 
dream,  however  beautiful  it  may  be  ” ; yet  a giant 
thinker,35  of  the  same  nation  as  it  chances,  will  write 
an  immortal  treatise  on  that  same  Perpetual  Peace , 
and  will  come  to  the  inspiriting  conclusion  that  it  is 
“ no  mere  empty  idea,  . . . but  rather  we  have  here  a 
problem  which  gradually  works  out  its  own  solution 
and,  as  the  periods  in  which  a given  advance  takes 
place  towards  the  realization  of  the  ideal  of  perpetual 
peace  will,  we  hope,  become  with  the  passing  of  time 
shorter  and  shorter,  we  must  approach  ever  nearer  to 
this  goal.”  The  dreams  which  nations  dream  in  their 
night  of  sorrow  become  their  waking  deeds  when  the 
day  dawns.  Man’s  hope  is  more  than  a genial  sentiment 
that  “springs  eternal”  from  the  volcanic  ashes  of  his 
burnt-out  ideals,  more  than  an  instinct  assertive  against 
every  defeat  as  the  buoy  that  dips  and  springs  before 
the  rollers  of  the  deep.  What  man  hopes  God  wills  : 
or,  perhaps  better,  what  God  wills  man  hopes.  Human 
hope  is  nothing  less  than  divine  will  getting  itself 
wrought  into  the  fabric  of  life.  To-day’s  dream  is 
to-morrow’s  deed.  To-day  plants  an  acorn  and  says, 
With  timber  from  this  my  great-great-grandchildren 
will  roof  the  temple  of  peace.  Yesterday  the  saint 
aspired,  to-day  the  poet  dreams,  to-morrow  the  sage 
will  expound,  and  on  the  fourth  day  the  statesman  will 
embody  in  a bill.  At  every  rung  in  the  ladder  humanity 


446 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


has  been  assured  the  next  step  up  was  impracticable, 
impossible  ; but  the  only  prophecies  that  remain  unful- 
filled are  those  of  pessimism  and  unfaith.  Humanity 
has  all  the  time  been  hearing  lectures  from  logic  and 
experience,  has  found  no  answer,  and  then  has  gone 
away  and  done  those  very  things  declared  impossible. 
The  first  steamship  that  crossed  the  Atlantic  carried  in 
her ‘cabin  a book  proving  to  demonstration  the  impos- 
sibility of  the  feat.  Mr.  Worldly  Wiseman  assures  hu- 
manity she  can  never  cross  the  red  sea  of  war  ; but  she 
kindles  her  flaming  enthusiasms  and  comes  to  her  new 
world,  her  Columbia,  her  dove-land , her  land  of  peace. 
Faith  is  not  a fool  : she  surveys  all  the  obstacles, 
ponders  all  the  difficulties,  counts  all  the  opponents, 
measures  all  the  “impossibilities,”  and  then  sings 
serenely  with  Scotia’s  great  national  bard36: 

For  a'  that,  and  a'  that , 

It’s  coming  yet,  for  a'  that , 

That  man  to  man,  the  warld  o’er, 

Shall  brothers  be,  for  ah  that ! 

Watchman,  what  of  the  night  ? The  morning  cometh  ! 
The  orient  is  furrowing  into  gold.  Once,  twice,  the 
cock  has  crowed  and  mankind  has  denied  with  oaths 
and  cursings ; but  at  the  third  clarion  the  morning  star 
will  shoot  beyond  the  sky  line,  and  man  will  come  to 
himself,  weep,  repent,  and  go  forth  to  an  apostolate  of 
peace  and  good  will.  King  Arthur  passes,  but  he  does 
not  die.  The  faith  expressed  in  such  terms  as  “Golden 
Age,”  “Utopia,”  “Millennium,”  “Isles  of  the  Blessed,” 
“Good  Time  Coming,”  “Kingdom  of  Heaven,”  “Eden,” 


TO  THE  REFORMER 


447 


“Paradise,”  is  more  than  poet’s  dream  and  prophet’s 
drivel.  History  is  behind  the  poet,  infinitude  before 
the  prophet.  The  thing  that  has  been  is  not  the  thing 
that  shall  be.  America’s  gentlest  poet,37  with  faith’s 
serenest  affirmations  deduced  from  a present  ideal  and 
a future  realization,  shall  confront  unbelief’s  denials 
drawn  only  from  experience  of  the  brutish  past,  and 
shall  speak  the  sure  word  of  prophecy  : 

Oh,  no  ! a thousand  cheerful  omens  give 
Hope  of  yet  happier  days,  whose  dawn  is  nigh. 

He  who  has  tamed  the  elements,  shall  not  live 
The  slave  of  his  own  passions ; he  whose  eye 
Unwinds  the  eternal  dances  of  the  sky, 

And  in  the  abyss  of  brightness  dares  to  span 
The  sun’s  broad  circle,  rising  yet  more  high, 

In  God’s  magnificent  works  his  will  shall  scan  — 

And  love  and  peace  shall  make  their  paradise  with  man. 


REFERENCES 

1.  Mr.  James  Bryce,  M.P.,  November,  1899: 

It  seems  a tragic  irony  that  we  should  do  nothing  to  carry  out  in 
practice  what  we  were  urging  in  theory,  and  that,  before  the  ink  was  dry 
on  The  Hague  protocols,  we  should  be  engaged  in  war  against  a state 
which  had  repeatedly  suggested  arbitration.  ...  A rude  and  deadly 
blow  has  been  dealt  to  the  prospect  which  last  summer  seemed  so  fair. 

2.  Mr.  Brodrick,  M.P.,  December  11,  1901. 

3.  “ Riflemen  Form  ! ” 

4.  Sydney  Buxton,  National  Review,  London,  June,  1903. 

5.  Investor's  Review,  London,  April,  1901. 

See  also  Monthly  Circular,  Durham,  by  John  Wilson,  M.P., 
October,  1904. 

We  need  no  clearer  object  lesson  of  the  folly  of  wasting  our  national 
resources  in  war  than  the  agitation  which  is  taking  place  on  the  question 


448 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


of  the  unemployed.  There  can  be  no  dispute  as  to  the  connection  between 
riotous  expenditure  on  war  and  the  preparation  for  it,  and  this  sad  prob- 
lem, and  everywhere  there  are  signs  that  the  people  are  realizing  that 
connection  and  its  result.  It  would  be  a fearful  balance  sheet  if  some 
accountant  were  able  to  set  forth  clearly  the  debit  and  credit  account  of 
the  South  African  crime.  The  credit  could  be  written  down  as  nil,  either 
in  material  gain  or  national  prestige  ; but  the  debit  would  defy  his  powers, 
both  in  detail  and  magnitude,  and  not  the  least  would  be  its  baleful 
influence  upon  the  trade  of  the  country.  It  is  not  possible  for  a nation 
to  increase  its  annual  war  expenditure  in  times  of  peace  at  the  rate 
we  are  doing,  and  add  over  ,£150,000,000  to  its  debt,  and  not  feel  the 
pressure.  That  is  the  Nemesis  which  will  surely  follow.  When  we  were 
in  our  Mafeking  days,  and  were  intoxicated  with  the  war  fury,  there  were 
men  who  risked  obloquy  and  slander,  and  pointed  to  this  evil.  They 
knew  that  social  suffering  and  industrial  depression  would  assuredly 
follow  the  wanton  waste,  and  the  fulfillment  of  their  prophecy  has  not 
been  long  delayed.  We  are  realizing  that  “it  is  one  thing  to  shout  for 
war,  and  another  to  pay  the  bill,  and  to-day  the  bill  is  being  paid  in 
dearer  coal,  dearer  tea,  dearer  sugar,  and  in  the  general  dislocation  of 
industry,  which  always  follow  on  the  heels  of  war.  As  to  the  numbers 
of  unskilled  workmen  who  are  seeking  work,  and  finding  none,  no  records 
exist;  but  no  one  can  doubt  that  the  lot  of  compulsory  idleness,  with  all 
its  miseries  and  degradation,  its  tale  of  sickness  and  want,  of  hopes 
abandoned  and  homes  destroyed,  has  fallen  on  scores  of  thousands  of 
our  fellow-citizens.”  It  is  not  asserted  here  that  industrial  crises  would 
not  recur,  but  it  is  emphatically  affirmed  that  they  are  hastened  and 
intensified  in  their  severity  by  war  in  fact,  and  in  preparation  for  it. 

6.  Soldier's  Pocket  Book,  pp.  6,  168,  377. 

7.  How  Nations  reward  their  Professional  Homicides  : 

( a ) Richard  Cobden,  Life , by  John  Morley,  p.  596. 

The  man  who  impersonated  [the  policy  of  war]  more  than  any  other 
was  the  Duke  of  Wellington,  and  I had  the  daily  opportunity  of  witness- 
ing at  the  Great  Exhibition  last  year  that  all  other  objects  of  interest  sank 
to  insignificance  even  in  that  collection  of  a world’s  wonders  when  he 
made  his  entry  in  the  Crystal  Palace.  The  frenzy  of  admiration  and 
enthusiasm  which  took  possession  of  100,000  people  of  all  classes  at 
the  very  announcement  of  his  name,  was  one  of  the  most  impressive 
lessons  I ever  had  of  the  real  tendencies  of  the  English  character.  . . . 
The  recent  demonstration  at  the  death  of  the  Duke  was  in  keeping  with 
what  I have  described. 


TO  THE  REFORMER 


449 


(6)  Review  of  Reviews,  Vol.  XXI,  p.  331. 

He  [Lord  Kitchener,  after  the  Soudan  Campaign]  has  dined  with  the 
Queen,  both  at  Balmoral  and  at  Windsor.  He  has  been  presented  with 
the  freedom  of  the  City  of  London,  of  Cambridge,  of  Edinburgh,  of 
Cardiff,  and  of  the  Fishmongers’  Company,  and  has  received  addresses 
from  Dover,  Chatham,  Brompton,  and  Bath,  besides  an  aldermanic 
reception  at  Windsor  station.  Both  the  universities  of  Cambridge  and 
Edinburgh  have  conferred  an  LL.D.  upon  him.  Many  banquets,  dinners, 
and  luncheons  have  been  given  in  his  honor,  etc. 

(By  contrast  with  their  peace  ambassadors)  : 

Well,  they  had  not  met  with  triumphal  arches,  they  had  not  been  sent 
for  by  the  Queen,  the  freedom  of  all  the  cities  of  the  kingdom  had  not 
been  presented  to  them.  — Lord  Russell,  on  returning  from  Paris  as  one 
of  the  British  arbitrators  in  the  Venezuelan  dispute,  December,  1899. 

(And  with  their  heroic  toiler-martyrs)  : 

The  industrial  accident  returns  for  March  are  terribly  heavy,  — 442 
workmen  killed  and  7584  injured  in  one  single  month.  There  is  no 
honorable  mention  for  these  442  men  struck  down  at  their  work,  no 
medals  or  pensions  for  the  7584  wounded,  no  sympathetic  and  laudatory 
speeches.- — New  Age,  May  24,  1900. 

8.  11  Elegy  on  the  Death  of  Dr.  Channing.” 

9.  Lord  Wolseley,  Western  Daily  Mercury,  August,  1896. 

10.  Herald  of  Peace,  January  1,  1904: 

The  captain  of  the  Russian  cruiser  Aurora,  while  at  Spezzia,  recently 
asked  the  local  authorities  for  permission  to  execute  within  the  har- 
bor a seaman  who  had  been  found  guilty  of  striking  a superior  officer. 
The  request  was  refused,  whereupon  the  cruiser  left  the  port,  returning 
to-day.  According  to  the  Avanti , the  man  was  executed  on  the  high  sea 
in  circumstances  of  great  barbarity,  the  poor  wretch  being  keelhauled. 
He  was  tied  to  a cable,  which  was  then  passed  under  the  ship’s  keel  three 
times.  It  was  not  until  the  third  time  that  the  man  was  pronounced  dead. 

11.  Don  Juan,  Canto  8,  III. 

12.  “ Song  of  Myself,”  18. 

13.  The  Crown  of  Wild  Olive , “Traffic,”  paragraph  74. 

14.  T.  G.  Bowles,  Contemporary  Review,  March,  1899. 

15.  “ Ouida,”  January  5,  1899. 

16.  Psalm  Iv.  21. 

17.  Hon.  Simon  Wolf,  Jewish  Criterion,  Vol.  XX,  No.  19. 


450 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


18.  Fallacy  of  “If  you  wish  for  Peace,  prepare  for 
War  ” : 

Lord  Aberdeen,  Hansard , Vol.  107,  p.  704. 

He  was  disposed  to  dissent  from  the  maxims  which  had  of  late  years 
received  very  general  assent,  that  the  best  security  for  the  continuance 
of  peace  was  to  be  prepared  for  war.  . . . Men,  when  they  adopted  such 
a maxim,  and  made  large  preparations  in  time  of  peace  that  would  be 
sufficient  in  the  time  of  war,  were  apt  to  be  influenced  by  the  desire  to 
put  their  efficiency  to  the  test,  that  all  their  great  preparations  and  the 
result  of  their  toil  and  expense,  might  not  be  thrown  away. 

19.  War  against  War,  p.  1. 

20.  Gaulois,  April,  1905. 

21.  De  Quincey,  Suspiria  de  prof undis. 

22.  Sonnet,  “ On  the  Lord  General  Fairfax.” 

23.  Sarah  Grand. 

24.  Lowell,  “ A Glance  behind  the  Curtain.” 

25.  Isaiah  i.  18. 

26.  Tennyson,  “ Locksley  Hall.” 

27.  Mrs.  Browning,  “A  Tale  of  Villafranca.” 

28.  Paradise  Lost,  Bk.  I. 

29.  Isaiah,  chap.  xiv. 

30.  Scottish  Song  after  Flodden  Field. 

31.  Joel,  chap.  iii. 

32.  Job,  chap.  xli. 

33.  Revelation,  chap.  xii. 

34.  Von  Moltke. 

35.  Immanuel  Kant. 

36.  Robert  Burns,  “A  Man ’s  a Man.” 

37.  William  Cullen  Bryant,  “ The  Ages.” 


INDEX 


Abolition  of  War:  aim  of  true 
morality,  30,  338  ; certain,  445  ; 
commerce  can  assist  in,  315, 
338;  destructive  weapons  can- 
not effect,  429  ; individual  faith- 
fulness essential,  71. 

Age,  the  : degenerate  elements 
in,  309,  347,  366 ; disappoint- 
ments of,  413;  tending  towards 
a great  military  catastrophe,  18, 
26,  431.  See  Civilization. 

America:  internal  development 
neglected,  310. 

Anglo-Saxon  Federation: 
should  be  more  than  comrade- 
ship in  arms,  288,  360. 

Animals:  cruelty  to,  in  war,  126. 
See  Horses. 

Arbitration  : advance  of,  28; 
rationality  of,  116,  437;  unwill- 
ingness to  resort  to,  14. 

Armaments  : a sign  of  fear,  68; 
increase  of,  415;  increase  of,  a 
cause  of  war,  430;  reduction  of, 
impossible  to  modern  govern- 
ments, 27  ; reduction  of,  not  an 
object  of  the  “ Peace  Crusade,” 
22. 

Army  : a conscript,  365  ; cause  of 
war,  431  ; degrading  to  a na- 
tion, 1 19,  147;  degrading  to 

women,  124;  individual  man- 
hood effaced  by,  1 1 9 ; instru- 
ment of  social  tyranny,  117, 
363;  proposal  to  graft  indus- 
trial training  on  to,  365  ; public 
school  exploited  by,  98;  not 


school  of  chivalry,  129;  school 
of  cowardice,  128,  146,  423; 
school  of  cruelty,  139;  school 
of  falsehood,  130  ; school  of  rob- 
bery, 133;  not  training  school 
of  religion,  257.  See  Soldier. 

Army  Chaplain  : 113,  247,  257. 

Barbarism  : cruelty  to  noncom- 
batants, 127,  145;  killing  for 
sport,  144;  killing  wounded  and 
prisoners,  139,  223;  torture  of 
prisoners,  144  ; war  a relic  of, 
no;  war  degenerates  into,  29, 
67,  1 1 7,  126,  136. 

Bible  : quoted  or  referred  to,  viii, 
xi,  2,  14,  33,  36,  42,  64,  65,  70, 
81,  108,  115,  132,  149,  171,  173, 
1 9 1 , 215,  216,  217,  226,  240,  246, 
251,  252,  255,  256,  259,  262,  272, 
278,  281,  284,  294,  298,  299,  326, 
33°)  336-  339»  35°>  352>  360,  361, 
37C  38i>  39C  393-  4°3-  422,  43°. 
43C437.  439-  443-  447 ! degraded 
into  a tool  for  spies,  133  ; in  the 
public  school,  94;  looting  of, 
134;  New  Testament  not  on  side 
of  soldier,  113;  superseded  by 
The  Soldiers'  Pocket  Book,  133. 

Books  : biographies  of  “ Christian 
soldiers,”  112;  fostering  the  war 
spirit,  100,  390.  See  Libraries. 

Boys’  Brigades  : unchristian,  101. 

Britain,  Great  : “ a nation  of 
shopkeepers,”  307  ; food  sup- 
plies, 394  ; the  new  Israel,  278  ; 
wealth  of,  312. 


451 


452 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


Browning,  Mrs.:  quoted,  176, 
353  ; on  freedom,  354  ; on  pa- 
tience, 442  ; on  patriotism,  382  ; 
on  political  righteousness,  168, 
184  ; on  thinkers  and  teachers, 
234- 

Browning,  Robert  : on  war  for 
the  sake  of  trade,  306. 

Bryant,  Wm.  C.:  on  peace,  447. 

Buddhism  : modern  views  of  war, 
278. 

Burns,  Robert:  on  “ man’s  inhu- 
manity to  man,”  145;  on  uni- 
versal brotherhood,  446. 

Byron  : mercy  better  than  war, 
426 ; on  the  horrors  of  war, 
143- 

Cant:  of  imperialism,  288,  327, 
352  ; of  the  war  platform,  190. 

Capital  : as  the  enemy,  335  ; con- 
spiring against  national  inde- 
pendence, 31 1 ; consumed  in 
war,  320;  controlling  newspapers, 
208,  318;  dictating  to  govern- 
ments, 315,  328;  exploiting  all 
w'arring  nations,  333  ; exploiting 
backward  races,  313;  foreign 
investment  of,  31 1,  324;  fur- 
nishing the  “ sinews  of  war,” 
328,  333 ; international,  332 ; 
promoting  militarism,  312  ; self- 
ish, 333,  339.  See  Commerce. 

Carlyle, Thomas:  on  the  “Fourth 
Estate,”  202  ; on  union  between 
Britain  and  America,  iii;  on 
war,  170,  348. 

Causes  of  War:  churchmen  re- 
fuse to  investigate,  240 ; covet- 
ousness, 65,  334,  358,  384 ; Dean 
Swift  on,  40 ; immense  arma- 
ments, 430. 

Channing,  W.  E. : on  the  false 
charms  of  war,  80. 


Character:  production  of,  the 
supreme  concern,  no;  two  dis- 
cordant types  of,  426. 

Children  : indoctrinated  with 
military  ideas  in  the  nursery, 
83 ; indoctrinated  with  military 
ideas  at  school,  84;  indoctri- 
nated with  military  ideas  by  toys 
and  games,  83,  98;  “juvenile 
crime,”  100;  patriotism  of,  89; 
persecuted  in  time  of  war,  87 ; 
perverted  by  false  history,  88  ; 
sacrificed  to  Moloch,  81  ; sacri- 
ficed for  the  nation,  89 ; suffer- 
ings of,  in  war,  51,  52  ; trained 
in  a dual  morality,  92;  trained 
in  moral  atheism,  96. 

Chivalry  : discouraged  in  mili- 
tary operations,  49,  128,  423. 

Christ:  Cassar  and,  in,  273; 
Christendom  refuses  to  obey, 
264;  headship  of,  273;  Lamb 
at  home,  Lion  abroad,  287 ; as 
“ Trince  of  war,”  259.  See  Jesus. 

Christendom  : creed  and  con- 
duct inconsistent,  414;  double- 
minded,  430  ; less  peaceful  than 
the  nonchristian  world,  251  ; 
love,  not  force,  proper  founda- 
tion of,  438  ; miseries  of,  236  ; 
preaching,  but  not  practicing, 
the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  4 ; 
refusing  to  obey  Christ,  264 ; 
religious  forces  of,  235;  why 
still  at  war,  235. 

Christianity:  appeal  to  its 
moral  principles,  4,  16;  con- 
demns all  war,  xi,  7,  9,  31,  235; 
early,  refused  to  participate  in 
war,  235,  281,  438  ; flouted  by 
its  own  professors  as  “ imprac- 
ticable,” 70,  255,  262;  genuine, 
cannot  effectively  prosecute 
war,  67;  genuine,  unpopular  in 


INDEX 


453 


war  time,  70;  renounced  by  the 
politician,  190.  See  Church,  Ec- 
clesiasticism,  Pulpit,  Religion. 

Church:  army  chaplains,  113, 
247,  257  ; backing  the  militant 
politician,  245,  252;  boys’  bri- 
gades, 10 1 ; Cain  preferred  to 
Christ,  47,  287;  cannot  prevent 
war,  261  ; Christ  degraded  by, 
236,  259;  Christianity  degraded 
by,  226,  248 ; Commandments 
tampered  with,  42,  54,  254  ; con- 
fusion of  ideas,  in,  259,  286; 
corrupted  by  the  war  spirit,  241, 
244, 260  ; dogmas  suited  to  ethics 
of,  260  ; faith  of,  lost,  300 ; favors 
war  in  general,  ix,  243,  247,  264, 
276;  favors  war  of  the  day,  246, 
273;  following  public  opinion, 
246 ; force  employed  to  propagate 
the  gospel,  286;  hymnology  in 
praise  of  war,  15,  250;  imperial- 
istic religion  of,  245,  253,  260; 
opportunism  of,  240,  264,  273 ; 
peace  advocates  outside  of,  ix, 
251  ; professional  teachers  of, 
responsible  for  war,  235 ; revenge 
sanctified,  254;  temptation  in 
the  wilderness,  274;  treasonable 
cry  of,  “ no  politics,”  240  ; the 
true,  251.  See  Ecclesiasticism. 

Citizen  : degraded  by  an  army, 
120;  indifferent  to  his  own 
countrymen,  49;  injured  by 
militarism,  347,  359;  preferring 
material  to  moral  interests,  186; 
responsible  for  war,  43,  56. 

Civilization  : aim  is  develop- 
ment, not  destruction,  69  ; force 
the  foundation  of,  438  ; goal  is 
humanistic,  109;  industrial  v. 
military,  312;  love  the  proper 
basis  of,  438  ; possible  end  of 
the  present,  443 ; revival  of 


paganism  in,  292  ; vices  carried 
abroad,  284 ; war  contrary  to, 
355.  See  Age. 

Classes  of  People:  interested 
in  war,  66,  174,  212,  329,  434; 
privileged,  favor  militarism, 

363,  388. 

Cobden  : apostle  of  peace  through 
free  trade,  322. 

Colonization  : conquest  not  a 
genuine  form  of,  400 ; imperial 
exploitation  contrasted  with,  399. 

Commandments  : abolished  by 
war,  370;  discarded  by  traders 
and  imperialists,  349,  356;  su- 
perseded by  the  military  regula- 
tions, 369;  tampered  with  by 
the  church,  42,  54,  254. 

Commerce:  buying  up  the  press, 
204,  318;  chambers  of,  307; 
missions  degraded  by,  276 ; 
national  flags  exploited  by,  326  ; 
peace  its  true  interest  and  end, 
3 07,  338 ; “ trade  follows  the 
flag”  an  error,  319;  war  de- 
moralizes, 277,  307,  320,  334, 
341  ; war  for  “the  open  door,” 
321  ; war  may  be  abolished  by, 
3rS-  323>  339-  See  Capital, 
Trade. 

Commonwealth:  empire  distin- 
guished from,  362  ; preferred  to 
empire,  391 . 

Conscription:  goal  of  military 
civilization,  364,  388. 

Courage,  Moral:  higher  than 
physical,  382,  422  ; required  to 
dissent  from  war,  7,  382.  See 
Heroes. 

Covetousness:  cause  of  war, 
334 ; greed  of  territory,  359. 

Cowardice  : in  the  pulpit,  240  ; 
promoted  by  war,  67,  128,  147, 

423. 


454 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


Cowper,  William:  on  freedom, 
370;  on  the  press,  203. 

Crime:  “juvenile,”  100;  war  pro- 
motes, 48,  65,  147. 

Czar  : Peace  Rescript  of  Nicholas 
II,  25,  432. 

Death  : men  do  not  fear,  5 ; not 
necessarily  an  evil,  8,  441. 

Democracy:  hope  for  modern, 
391;  militarism  the  enemy  of, 
348,  363,  388;  plutocracy  and, 
337,  390  ; war  inconsistent  with, 
no.  See  People. 

Despair  : politicians  in,  26,  27 ; 
religious  and  political  pessimism, 
299,  436.  See  Fatalism. 

Destiny,  National:  a plea  for 
war,  13;  “Manifest  Destiny,” 
297,  392- 

Diplomacy:  militant,  177;  un- 
truthful, 187. 

Disarmament:  does  not  neces- 
sarily entail  destruction,  440. 

Ecclesiasticism:  casuistry  of, 
256;  cold  to  the  peace  advo- 
cate, 13,  245  ; exploiting  wars 
for  new  buildings,  250 ; readi- 
ness to  sanction  wars,  13,  246. 
See  Church. 

Economics:  arguments  of,  cannot 
prevent  war,  18;  erroneously 
made  to  favor  war,  277. 

Education  : does  not  prevent 
war,  33  ; endeavor  to  graft,  on 
military  training,  365  ; perverted 
to  military  ends,  97. 

Emerson  : on  love  as  the  basis  of 
society,  440. 

Empire:  “benevolent,”  a failure, 
413  ; commonwealth  opposed  to, 
362,  391 ; decay  of,  inevitable,  69, 
359,  370  ; price  of,  too  great,  370. 


Enemies:  deprived  of  liberty,  67; 
justice  towards,  384;  rejoicing 
in  sufferings  of,  44,  52 ; slander- 
ing,  53,  215;  spiteful  temper 
towards,  49. 

Expediency  : illustrated  by  “ Peace 
Crusade,”  21  ; in  despair,  23; 
its  motives  not  enough  to  pre- 
vent war,  17;  its  motives  not 
enough  to  establish  arbitration, 
28;  its  motives  not  enough  to 
secure  disarmament,  26;  the 
“ practical  man  ” declines  to 
seriously  discuss  the  peace  prin- 
ciple, 35 ; principle  must  sup- 
plant, 23,  28,  30. 

Faith  : between  nations,  404 ; 
destroyed  in  children,  93,  96 ; 
destroyed  by  the  war  spirit,  251  ; 
modern  church  has  lost,  299 ; 
obstacles  not  overlooked  by, 
442;  war  abolished  by,  35,  442  ; 
war  caused  by  want  of,  69. 

Fatalism:  in  politics,  297,  392. 

Free  Speech  : suppressed  in  war 
time,  63,  221,  382. 

Free  Trade:  an  evangel,  323; 
war  for,  322. 

God  : war  leads  from  dependence 
on,  70. 

Goodness,  Personal  : a better 
defense  than  arms,  381 ; better 
than  patriotism,  403;  does  not 
restrain  from  war,  31,  47. 

Gospel:  a “transcendental”  and 
a “ common-sense,”  287 ; mili- 
tary regulations  superseding, 
108 ; propagating,  by  force,  295. 

Governments:  allegiance  to,  not 
absolute,  369;  armaments  can- 
not be  reduced  by,  27  ; capital- 
ism can  manipulate,  315,  328; 


INDEX 


455 


extravagance  of,  416;  peace 
advocates  not  protected  by,  386; 
personal  morality  destroyed  by, 
1 14;  schools  captured  by,  for 
the  army,  97.  See  Politicians. 

Greed  : war  fosters,  66. 

Heathenism:  tolerant  of  Chris- 
tian religion,  291.  See  Native 
Races,  Paganism. 

Heroes:  of  missions,  275,  301; 
of  peace,  90,  425 ; of  peace 
called  “traitors,”  387;  wherein 
their  heroism,  428.  See  Courage. 

History:  as  fraternal  evolution, 
302 ; children  have  it  wrongly 
presented,  88 ; patriotism  per- 
verts, 88 ; as  it  should  be  writ- 
ten, 90. 

Horses:  in  war,  30.  See  Animals. 

Humanity  : greater  than  imperi- 
alism, 404;  greater  than  patri- 
otism, 398. 

Hymnology:  “impious,”  15,  87; 
of  the  British  Army,  1 12,  250,  258. 

Ideals  : “ active  ” and  “passive  ” 
virtues,  293;  betrayal  of,  414; 
Christian,  surrendered  to  polit- 
ical, 299  ; clash  of,  1 10,  274,  286, 
292,  347,  426;  in  commerce, 
340;  never  wholly  lost,  422; 
newspapers  fostering  low,  206. 

Imperialism  : a pagan  ideal, 
292 ; an  obsession,  359 ; appeal  of, 
to  sentiment,  331,  334;  as  land 
hunger,  358;  as  “New  Israel- 
ism,”  278;  cant  of,  288,  355; 
capitalism  in  alliance  with,  313, 
328,  334  ; Christian  missions  de- 
graded by,  273;  climax  of,  443; 
commonwealth  a nobler  ideal 
than,  362,  391 ; conscription  the 
end  of,  364,  388 ; cost  of,  370 ; 


Darwinism  perverted  into  an  ex- 
cuse for,  14  ; definitions  of,  349; 
development  of  home  land  more 
important  than,  277,  287,  312, 
326,  366,  391  ; driving  forces  of, 
330;  ecclesiastical  form  of,  245, 
253,  260;  humanism  to  be  pre- 
ferred to,  404;  invading  educa- 
tion and  the  schools,  98;  jealousy 
provoked  by,  360 ; “ manifest 
destiny”  not  a sufficient  plea,  298, 
392 ; national  impoverishment 
caused  by,  18,  328,  398;  not 
genuine  colonization,  399;  phil- 
anthropy only  a pretense,  294, 

297,  327.  353 ; Pride  of-  298 ; 

pride  of,  extends  to  persons,  361 ; 
ruling  idea  of  republic  and  mon- 
archy alike,  17  ; self-government 
contrary  to,  400;  selfish,  349; 
self-righteous,  350. 

Jesus:  beatitudes  renounced,  191, 
294  ; described  as  “ not  a peace- 
at-any-price  man,”  236;  ethics 
reasoned  away,  256,  261  ; ideals 
rejected  for  those  of  paganism, 
294,  299;  quoted,  2,  113,  191, 
371  ; rejected  in  favor  of  Mars, 
249  ; rejected  in  favor  of  Moses, 
259 ; rejected  in  favor  of  Odin, 
251;  and  soldiers,  113,  256; 
sufferings  different  from  those 
of  soldiers,  257  ; teachings  prac- 
ticable, 263 ; teachings  pro- 
nounced impracticable,  289 ; 
“what  would  Jesus  do?”  112, 
257.  See  Christ. 

Journalism:  See  Press. 

Justice:  towards  other  nations, 
384- 

Kant,  Immanuel  : on  perpetual 
peace,  445. 


456 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


Kingsley,  Charles:  on  Jesuit- 
ical surrender  of  conscience,  1 18. 

Kipling,  Rudyard  : quoted,  124, 

356>  358- 

Labor  : nobler  than  war,  367. 

Liberty:  Browning,  Mrs.,  on, 
354 ; capitalism  a menace  to, 
3 1 1 , 329,  336;  imperialism  a 
menace  to,  388  ; war  destroys, 
67,  174,  383;  war  on  behalf  of, 
a mistake,  437. 

Libraries,  Public:  perverted  to 
militarism,  99.  See  Books. 

Love  : the  proper  basis  of  society, 

438- 

Low  ell,  J.  R.:  on  change  de- 
manded, 438 ; on  duty  before 
patriotism,  380  ; on  peace  heroes 
greater  than  those  of  war,  421  ; 
on  war  and  civilization,  355. 

Lunacy  : war  increases  amount 
of,  65. 

Mammon  : elect  deceived  by,  331 ; 
headship  of  all  the  “interests,” 
336  ; morality  despised  by,  334  ; 
press  corrupted  by,  204 ; war 
caused  by,  65,  332,  335. 

Man  : degraded  into  a soldier, 
1 19;  evolving  into  a moral 
being,  425,  438  ; going  on  to  a 
peaceful  future,  445  ; more  than 
nations,  1 ro ; physically  brave,  5. 

Martyrdom:  of  nations,  441. 

Materialism  : as  a national 
ideal,  69,  186. 

Mazzini  : on  British  policy,  346; 
on  nationalities,  401. 

Might  v.  Right  : the  prevailing 
law,  183. 

Militarism:  a disease,  69; 
as  Moloch,  42,  65,  81  ; attractive 
exterior  of,  80 ; capitalism  fosters, 


313  ; citizenship  discouraged  by, 
347,  362  ; conscience  abrogated 
by,  114;  gospel  abolished  by, 
108;  national  suicide,  18,  398, 
431 ; stupidity  of,  178,  394  ; stu- 
pidity of  “coast  defenses,”  396; 
tending  to  a world-wide  catas- 
trophe, 432;  tyranny  promoted 
by,  174,  364,  387,  431. 

Miller,  Joaquin  ; on  religious 
cowardice,  248. 

Milton  : on  a free  press,  205  ; on 
Satanic  pride,  442;  on  the  folly 
of  war,  435  ; on  the  shame  of 
war,  5. 

Missions  and  Missionaries:  cor- 
rupted by  commerce,  276,  288  ; 
corrupted  by  imperialism,  273, 
295  ; doing  evil  that  good  may 
come,  286;  force  employed  in 
promoting,  281,  286,  301,  309; 
heroic  types  of,  275,  301  ; mar- 
tyrdoms compared  to  lynchings, 
290  ; political  motives  in,  284  ; 
war  encouraged  by,  278. 

Mob  Law  : assaults  upon  peace, 
men,  and  meetings,  63  ; mob 
violence,  65,  219;  the  press  en- 
couraging, 385. 

Moloch  : militarism  as,  42,  65,  81. 

Montesquieu:  on  the  fate  of 
Europe,  371. 

Moral  Sense  : corrupted  by 
school  training,  88  ; hot  ex- 
hausted, 441  ; obliterated  in 
professional  fighters,  127;  re- 
volts against  warring  govern- 
ments, 369;  war  injures,  41,  71, 
81,  147,  415. 

Moral  Warfare  : greater  than 
physical,  382  ; necessary  in  our 
time,  405. 

Morality  : children  taught  a dual, 
92 ; Christendom  entertaining 


INDEX 


457 


a dual,  93  ; human  nature  ad- 
vancing in,  425  ; imperialism  dis- 
courages, 358  ; more  important 
than  money,  370 ; more  powerful 
than  intellect  to  prevent  war,  33 ; 
“off  the  slate,”  334 ; standards  of, 
differ  in  personal  and  public 
matters,  32,  42,  47 ; war  the 
abolition  of,  42. 

Morley,  John  : on  the  newspaper 
press,  200. 

Nationalism,  Nationality: 
cherished  in  right  ways,  397, 
401  ; on  the  mission  field,  290; 
should  become  international, 

439- 

Nations:  a martyr  nation,  441  ; 
bankruptcy  their  sure  fate,  17  ; 
brotherhood  of,  403  ; cannot 
wage  effectual  war  when  Chris- 
tian, 67  ; capitalism  controlling, 
328,  336;  capitalism  destroying, 
310,  329;  caring  only  for  “in- 
terests,” 349  ; degraded  by  their 
armies,  107,  147;  “destinies  of,” 
in  collision,  14;  development 
of,  better  than  foreign  conquest, 
277,  287,  312,  326,  367,  391; 
emblems  of,  135  ; flags  as  com- 
mercial assets  of,  326;  home 
land  neglected  for  foreign  in- 
vestments, 193,  31 1 , 326,  391; 
imperialism  a cause  of  poverty 
to,  18 ; individuals  their  salva- 
tion, 71,  381  ; jealousy  of  each 
others’  trade,  320  ; killing  them- 
selves with  their  own  weapons, 
19,  431  ; land  hunger  of,  358; 
“manifest  destiny”  of,  184; 
materialistic  ideals  of,  69 ; pride 
of,  58,  350  ; rebuking  their  own 
vices  in  others,  208  ; self-love  of, 
58  ; sharing  the  plunder  of  war, 


67  ; similar  capacities  for  good 
and  evil  in  all,  vii ; their  wars 
regarded  as  just  and  necessary, 
il;  war  spirit  demoralizing  to, 
41,  415. 

Native  Races:  appeal  for  jus- 
tice, 284,  318  ; corrupted  by  civ- 
ilization, 284 ; corrupted  by 
traders,  356;  exploited  by  cap- 
italism, 313,  326,  355;  exploited 
by  imperialism,  398  ; superior  to 
civilized  soldiery,  283  ; their  im- 
pression of  Christian  races,  2S9; 
war  upon,  for  trade,  276 ; war 
upon,  for  religion,  284.  See 
Savages. 

New  Israelism:  doctrine  of, 
278,  294. 

New  Testament:  beatitudes  im- 
perially revised,  191  ; soldiers 
and,  246  ; twisted  into  a defense 
of  war,  256.  See  Old  Testa- 
ment, Bible. 

Newspapers  : See  Press. 

Nursery:  a training  ground  for 
the  army,  83. 

Obedience  : immorality  of  the 
soldier’s,  42, 115;  irrationality  of 
the  soldier’s,  1 1 5 ; to  Christ,  263. 

Old  Testament:  employed  to 
encourage  war,  94;  a favorite 
during  war  time,  241  ; preferred 
to  New  Testament,  2 5g.  See 
Bible. 

Paganism  : Christendom  based 
on  Roman,  438  ; twentieth-cen- 
tury revival  of,  292,  368.  See 
Heathenism. 

Passive  Resistance  : to  war  and 
war  taxes,  368. 

Patriotism:  bias  of,  53,  222; 
cant  of,  190;  different  kinds  of, 


458 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


383;  duty  before,  3S0;  false, 
71,  85,  87,  352;  humanity 
greater  than,  401  ; living  for 
one’s  country  better  than  fight- 
ing for  it,  381,  396,  402 ; national 
prejudice,  vi ; religion  before, 
384  ; repudiated  for  fraternity, 
4°3- 

Peace  : Bryant  on,  447  ; Burns 
on,  446  ; certain  in  the  future, 
446 ; choice  of  peace  or  war  is 
absolute,  26,  171  ; church  has 
machinery  for  promoting,  141 ; 
commerce  promotes,  as  its  high- 
est interest,  307,  338;  free  trade 
promotes,  322 ; heroes  of,  90, 
425;  how  to  work  for,  436; 
politics  should  aim  at,  169. 

“Peace  Crusade,  The”:  in 
what  sense  a disappointment, 
21,  414. 

Peace  Movement  : adherents 
subjected  to  violence,  386  ; basis 
of,  46  ; future  of,  439 ; Hague 
Conference  and  Convention,  24, 
439 ; schools  of  thought  united 
amid  differences,  xi. 

People,  The  : deluded  by  capi- 
talism, 314,  329,  336;  deluded 
by  the  classes,  389 ; deluded 
by  newspapers,  202,  216,  383  ; 
deluded  by  their  rulers,  183, 
212,  309,  329,  363;  deluded  by 
schemers,  332  ; enslaved  by  mil- 
itarism, 175;  held  down  by  arma- 
ments and  debt,  18,  328,  416; 
on  the  side  of  peace  naturally, 
17 1;  preventable  loss  of  their 
lives,  396 ; war  passions  and  ex- 
citements, 61,  202,  332,  385.  See 
Democracy,  Nations. 

Persecution  : of  faithful  preach- 
ers, 238 ; of  missionaries  for 
political  reasons,  291. 


Politicians  : alarmed  but  impo- 
tent, 17,  26;  Christianity  re- 
nounced by,  1 90 ; claiming  preach- 
ers for  war  policy,  245,  252 ; 
conniving  at  mob  law,  63  ; de- 
luding the  people,  183,  363; 
empire  preferred  to  common- 
wealth by,  391 ; enemies  insulted 
and  slandered  by,  188;  force 
preferred  to  reason  by,  1 78  ; ma- 
terial preferred  to  moral  inter- 
ests by,  1 39 ; missionaries  as,  284, 
291 ; plotting  against  other  na- 
tions, 186;  proper  object  of,  is 
peace,  169;  soldiers  flattered 
by,  419;  thwarting  the  pacific 
intentions  of  a people,  17 1; 
untruthfulness  of,  185;  vicious 
sayings  of,  20,  28,  173,  176,  186, 
190,191;  war  covering  their  mis- 
takes, 169,  180;  war  nourishing 
their  pride,  172,  180;  war  pro- 
moting their  personal  ambitions, 
175;  war  proving  their  stupidity, 
178,  394;  working  on  the  peo- 
ple’s passions,  176,  179.  See 
Governments. 

Politics  : See  Imperialism. 

Pope,  Alexander:  on  exploita- 
tion of  native  races,  400. 

Poverty  : increased  by  war,  65, 
417- 

Press,  The:  bloodthirsty,  206, 
221  ; bought  over  to  advocate 
war,  209;  censorship  of,  217; 
commercial,  204;  conspiring  to 
bring  about  war,  207,  222,  317; 
enemies  insulted  and  slandered 
by,  52,  56,  213;  false  patriotism 
of,  221  ; free  speech  suppressed 
by,  221;  low  ideals  of,  206 ; lying, 
203,  209 ; military  control  of, 
364;  mob  violence  encouraged 
by,  383;  popular  passions 


INDEX 


459 


awakened  by,  202 ; purpose  of, 
201;  religious,  the,  48,  225; 
unfairness  of,  218,  226;  vicious 
sayings  of,  28,  32,  362  ; war  corre- 
spondents, 223 ; war  encouraged 
by,  47,  207. 

Pride:  defeat  does  not  subdue, 
60;  imperialism  feeding,  361, 
443  ; national,  58,  298,  350  ; of 
politicians  nourished  by  war, 
173,180;  pulpit  nourishing,  253. 

Pulpit,  The  : apostasy  of,  243, 
248;  Bible  bullies,  248,  253; 
casuistry  of,  256;  defaming  ene- 
mies, 56,  247 ; demoralized  by 
war  spirit,  236,  252,  257  ; double- 
minded,  259;  ethics  of  Jesus 
reasoned  away,  256,  262  ; fear 
of  losing  “influence,”  240;  fos- 
tering national  pride,  233  ; inhu- 
manity of,  254 ; opportunities 
of,  235 ; preachers,  some  faith- 
ful, 237  ; silence  of,  241;  vicious 
utterances  in  defense  of  war,  13, 
14,  15,  16,  29,  1 1 1,  1 12,  226,  236, 
240,  241,  245,  247,  248,  250,  253, 
2 54.  2SS.  257.  259,  276,  277,  284; 
vicious  utterances  in  praise  of 
soldiers,  112.  See  Church. 

Reason  : discarded  for  force,  177  ; 
eliminated  from  the  soldier’s 
mind,  115  ; Swift,  Jonathan,  on, 
12  ; war  not  prevented  by  appeal 
to,  9. 

Reformer:  disappointed,  413; 
fight  for  a free  press,  201  ; need 
of  patience,  442  ; put  lower  than 
warrior,  90,  418;  Tennyson  on, 
412. 

Reforms  : almost  within  reach, 
414;  domestic  improvement  v. 
foreign  conquest,  392  ; thwarted 
by  new  forms  of  evil,  99; 


thwarted  by  war,  415;  thwarted 
by  war  expenditure*,  18,  416. 

Religion  : alone  sufficient  to 
abolish  war,  viii ; best  national 
defense,  381  ; ethical  transfor- 
mation of,  235 ; politician  dis- 
carding, 191  ; politics  should  be 
shaped  by,  265  ; war  cannot  be 
prevented  by  a formal,  70;  war 
for,  a mistake,  437  ; war  incom- 
patible with  true  religion,  70, 
n 5,  235.  • See  Christianity. 

Revenge:  for  death  of  mission- 
aries, 281,  301  ; sanctified  by  the 
church,  254. 

Revolution  : suggested  by  wars 
of  aggression,  277. 

Robertson  of  Brighton  : on 
military  brutality,  283. 

Ruskin,  John  : commerce  as  a 
cause  of  war,  308  ; covetousness 
the  root  of  war,  334 ; enlisting 
men  for  labor,  367  ; heroism  in 
labor,  428 ; how  women  could 
stop  all  wars,  102;  The  Crown 
of  Wild  Olive , 41,  235,  416. 

Sacrifices:  cant  of,  190,  257,  352 ; 
genuine,  441. 

Savages  : their  endurance  of  pain, 
424;  war  against,  68,  136,  140. 
See  Native  Races. 

School,  The  : Bible  in,  94  ; con- 
flicting with  the  home,  92  ; edu- 
cation should  be  for  peace,  89; 
false  patriotism  taught,  85  ; mil- 
itary training  in,  84  ; recruiting 
ground  for  army,  97  ; the  army 
as  a school,  365. 

Scott,  Sir  Walter:  on  fighting 
Christians,  279 ; on  the  soldier’s 
irresponsibility,  1 1 5,  119;  on 
trade  and  war,  327 ; on  wealth, 
and  war,  333'. 


460 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


Shakespeare:  on  the  terrors  of 
war,  174.  ' 

Sin  : death  preferable  to,  441  ; of 
imperialism,  362  ; original  sin 
of  nations,  349 ; war  must  be 
regarded  as,  7,  16,  23,  35. 

Slander:  of  “the  enemy,”  54, 
56,  143,  189,  215,  290. 

Social  Service:  all  should  en- 
gage in,  367  ; nobler  than  war, 
367.  415- 

Soldier  : an  advocate  of  war, 
122,421,  442;  a pagan  survival, 
1 10;  brute  symbols  of  his  char- 
acter, 135;  citizen  more  guilty 
than,  43,  55  ; courage  of,  not  the 
highest  kind,  422  ; creed  of,  1 18  ; 
cruelty  of,  inevitable,  44, 1 1 7, 1 25 ; 
degraded  and  tortured,  119;  de- 
moralized by  war,  109,  112,  124, 
137,  225;  dishonesty  a part  of 
his  training,  94,  129,  133;  dis- 
likes the  reformer,  421  ; encour- 
aged by  the  priest,  247;  feelings  of, 
in  battle,  141;  honors  conferred 
on,  418  ; indifference  of,  to  life, 
139,  148  ; oath  of  obedience  of, 
antichristian,  1 1 4 ; oath  of  obe- 
dience of,  immoral,  42  ; oath  of 
obedience  of,  irrational,  1 1 5 ; 
the  “ Christian  soldier,”  1 1 1, 421; 
“war  madness”  of,  143,  147. 
See  Army. 

Soldier’s  Pocket  Book,  The  : 
quoted,  94,  120,  123,  124,  126, 
130,  131,  132,  133,  138,  140,  217, 
418. 

Spencer,  Herbert:  on  the  bias 
of  patriotism,  53. 

Sufferings  : approved  by  the 
pulpit,  254;  cannot  deter  men 
from  war,  5,  20,  43,  141,  334, 
362 ; nature  of  the  soldier’s, 
423;  of  noncombatants,  127,145. 


Swift,  Jonathan:  on  the  causes 
of  war,  40  ; on  the  cruelty  of  war, 
53,  140;  on  the  perversion  of 
reason,  12. 

Taxes  : refusal  to  pay,  368;  the 
people  pay,  314. 

Tennyson:  jingoism  of,  416;  on 
the  corrupting  power  of  false- 
hood, 218  ; on  the  reformer’s 
disappointment,  412  ; on  the  sol- 
dier’s oath  of  obedience,  116. 

“Thou  shalt  not  kill”:  in- 
difference to  life,  48,  144,  148. 

“To  the  Victors  the  Spoils”: 
annexation  of  conquered  coun- 
tries, 67,  185. 

Tolstoy:  on  the  gospels  and  the 
military  regulations,  108;  on 
military  degradation,  1 19 ; on 
the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  272  ; 
on  the  soldier  declining  to 
think,  1 16;  on  the  true  church, 
251- 

Trade:  war  for,  68,  309,  315,  320. 
See  Commerce,  Free  Trade. 

Treason  : patriotism  counted  as, 
382;  peace  counted  as,  387. 

Tyranny  : imperialism  creates, 
354,  388 ; militarism  promotes, 
174;  “necessity  the  tyrant’s 
plea,”  184. 

War:  against  savage  tribes,  68, 
136,  140,  276,  284;  as  confes- 
sion of  failure,  180 ; as  divine 
chastisement,  15;  as  fatal  to 
the  conquerors  as  to  the  con- 
quered, 16;  barbarities  inevi- 
table, 67,  hi,  127,  136,  223; 
cannot  be  prevented  by  appeal 
to  pity,  5,  20,  43,  1 4 1,  334,  362  1 
cannot  be  prevented  by  appeal 
to  reason,  9,  115,  442;  cannot 


INDEX 


be  prevented  by  considerations 
of  expense,  18,  416;  cannot  be 
prevented  by  culture,  33 ; can- 
not be  prevented  by  motives  of 
expediency,  17;  cannot  be  pre- 
vented by  personal  goodness, 
31,  47  ; cannot  be  prevented  by 
theories  of  lawful  and  unlawful 
kinds,  10  ; capital  consumed  in, 
320;  Carlyle  on,  170,  348; 

causes  of,  40,  65 ; church  in 
favor  of,  245,  264,  273  ; citizen 
responsible  for,  43,  56  ; classes 
interested  in,  66,  174,  212,  329, 
434 ; commerce  could  abolish, 
315,  339;  courage  required  to 
dissent  from,  7,  382;  covetous- 
ness the  root  of,  334  ; crime  fos- 
tered by,  48,  65,  100,  147;  does 
not  benefit  human  nature,  41  ; 
does  not  counteract  luxury,  65 ; 
drink  and,  136;  evil  consists  in 
its  evil  passions,  8,  46;  excuse 
always  found  for,  10 ; faith  can 
abolish,  35,  442  ; for  the  sake  of 
commerce,  308,  323 ; for  the 
sake  of  dominion,  308  ; for  the 
sake  of  freedom  and  religion, 
437  ; for  the  sake  of  free  trade, 
322 ; for  the  sake  of  the  gospel, 
278,  287  ; governments  gain  too 
much  power  through,  171  ; 
horses  and  other  animals  in, 
30,  126;  hypocritical  arguments 
for,  14,  69,  190;  “if  you  wish 
for  peace  prepare  for  war,”  430  ; 
“impious  hymnology  ” in  praise 
of,  15,  87;  inconsistent  with 
Christianity,  235 ; inconsistent 
with  democracy,  no;  looting 
in,  133,  147  ; lunacy  increased 
by,  65;  meanness  of,  137; 
might  for  right  in,  183;  moral 
damage  of,  to  the  consciences  of 


461 

nations,  9,  41,  42,  109,  120,  415  ; 
moral  damage  of,  to  politicians, 
169;  moral  damage  of,  to  re- 
ligious teachers,  13,  235;  moral 
damage  of,  worse  than  physical, 
9,  43,  82,  103;  not  a problem 
but  a crime,  34;  not  “inevi- 
table,” 435;  not  to  be  “human- 
ized” but  abolished,  30,  126; 
passive  resistance  to,  368  ; pov- 
erty produced  by,  65,  417  ; ro- 
mantic side  of,  54,  80,  129; 
science  perverted  into  an  ex- 
cuse for,  14;  secondary  wrongs 
of,  19;  sin,  viii,  16,  26,  31,  41; 
“sinews  of  war,”  333;  strata- 
gems of,  135;  sufferings  of  non- 
combatants,  127,  145;  the  Great 
Stupidity,  120  ; toilers  sacrificed 
to,  396,  414;  “ war  is  hell  ” used 
as  an  excuse,  29,  136;  wounded 
in,  138  ; wounded  and  prisoners 
killed  in,  139,  223. 

War  Spirit,  The:  advantages 
of  those  who  are  free  from,  41, 
283 ; antichristian,  47,  70,  190, 
240,384;  canting,  190,  288,  353; 
cowardly,  67,  128,  423  ; cruelty 
of  noncombatants,  43,  50,  109, 
220,  254,  332;  demoralizing  all 
nations  alike,  vi ; demoralizing 
Christian  missions,  273;  demor- 
alizing the  church,  244,  261,  273; 
demoralizing  commerce,  307 ; 
demoralizing  literature,  100;  de- 
moralizing the  preacher,  235  ; 
demoralizing  the  press,  202  ; de- 
moralizing women,  32  ; fostering 
civil  discord,  63  ; fostering  dual 
morality,  93,  414;  fostering  in- 
difference to  life,  48  ; fostering 
national  pride,  58,  173,  253,  298, 
351  ; hostile  to  citizenship,  347, 
362;  hostile  to  free  speech,  63, 


462 


MORAL  DAMAGE  OF  WAR 


221,  383;  hostile  to  liberty,  174, 
382 ; hostile  to  national  sim- 
plicity, 65,  416;  in  the  nursery, 
83  ; in  the  public  library,  99  ; in 
the  school,  84;  irrational,  177; 
is  the  real  enemy,  46 ; lying,  94, 
129,  185  ; mammon  worship  of, 
65;  moral  atheism  of,  96,  251, 
299;  persecuting,  239,382;  per- 
verting history,  88 ; press  en- 
couraging, 47,  202  ; revengeful 
and  ungenerous,  49,  173,  184, 
254,  349;  slanderous,  54,  188, 
213,  247,  290;  utilizing  the  Old 
Testament,  94;  war  madness, 
143-  147- 


Weapons:  deadliness  of  modern, 
429 ; what  they  may  come  to, 
442. 

Whitman,  Walt:  on  the  greatest 
heroes,  427  ; on  the  ultimate 
religion,  xiii. 

Women  : effect  of  the  war  spirit 
on,  32 ; how  they  can  put  an 
end  to  war,  102;  must  rescue 
childhood  from  militarism,  102; 
prostituted  to  armies,  124,  144; 
sufferings  of,  in  war,  52,  128,  145, 
433  ; their  instincts  against 
war,  433. 

Wordsworth:  “Carnage  is 
God’s  daughter,”  258. 


Date  Due 

£8  2 3 194k 

■ 

-i 

j &#&** 

w 

if 

...1  nr 

f) 

